Salama Asem 2017 Ed413

UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG
ÉCOLE DOCTORALE des SCIENCES de la TERRE

Institut de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg
THÈSE
Présentée par :
Asem Salama
Soutenue le : 6 Novembre 2017
Pour obtenir le grade de : 'RFWHXUGHO¶XQLYHUVLWpGH6WUDVERXUJ

Discipline/ Spécialité:Géophysique
TITRE de la thèse
Recherche sur les traces et dépôts de tsunami le long
GHODF{WHPpGLWHUUDQpHQQHGHO¶(J\SWH&RQWH[WH
sismotectonique et modélisation
Active tectonics and Paleotsunami recordsof the

Northern Coast of Egypt
THÈSE dirigée par :

Prof. MEGHRAOUI Mustapha Directeur de Thèse, Université de Strasbourg
RAPPORTEURS :
Prof. Maria Ana Viana Baptista Rapporteur Externe, Instituto Superior de
Engenharia de Lisboa
Prof.Christophe Morhange Rapporteur Externe,Université Marseille
AUTRES MEMBRES DU JURY:

Prof. Hesham Hussein Examinateur, National Research Institute of
Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG, Cairo)
Prof. Ahmet Yalciner Examinateur, Middle East Technical University,
(METU, Ankara)
Assoc. Prof. Mohamed El-Gabry Examinateur, National Research Institute of
Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG, Cairo)
FOREWORD
First, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr

Mustapha Meghraoui and my adviserDr. Mohamed El Gabry, whose advice and mentorship
have been tireless, fair and of top-notch standards. I am grateful to my Prof. Dr Mustapha
for teaching me the methodologies, problem-solving approaches, and sharing his
experiences in active tectonics and his knowledge during the stages of my works, Dr
Mohamed El Gabry, for his cooperation's and his continued assistance during my field work
and PhD stages.
I would like to thank Profs.Ana Maria Viana Baptista, Christophe Morhange, Ahmet
Yalciner, Hesham Hussein and Assoc.Prof. Mohamed El Gabry for their acceptance to be
among the jury members. I would like to express my appreciation to Profs. Hatem Odah,
Hesham Hussein for their scientific and logistic support during the field works and my work
progress.I am grateful to Drs. Said Maouche, Assia Harbi, Saud Abdelhady, my NRIAG
colleagues Sayed Mekhaimr, Hany Hassen, Adel Sami, Mohamed Maklad, Mohamed
Sayedandmy friend Grant Wilson from New Zealand for their keen efforts and help during
the development of this work.
I wish also to thank the Institut Français du Caire and the French-Egyptian IMHOTEP
program for their interest and support. I would like to express my appreciation to central
metallurgical research centre laboratory, for the geochemical analysis. Also, Thanks to the
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC) of UNESCO for providing me Bathymetry data 2014 of the Eastern
Mediterranean which was helpful in the tsunami modelling. The scientific results of stress
inversion in chapter III were obtained using Win-Tensor, a software developed by Dr
Damien Delvaux, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium.
I am also grateful to the French Centre d'études Alexandrines for providing their
drilling equipment. Special thanks to Egyptian Armed Forces for issuing permissions and
their support during field work. I am also thankful to my PhD students colleagues Souhila
Bagdi-Issaad and Jugurtha Kariche for their support during my stay at the IPG Strasbourg.
This PhD thesis is conducted in the frame of the scientific cooperation between the
National Institute of Geophysics and Astronomy (NRIAG, Cairo), and Ecole et Observatoire
des Sciences de la Terre (EOST - IPGS) Université de Strasbourg, France, and the
IMHOTEP bilateral French-Egyptian cooperation program (Campus-France) and European
project ASTARTE. The NRIAG scientific foundation and the ASTARTE EC-funded project
ii
support my research work in the field and at the laboratory. In addition, the IMHOTEP
project (CMEP, Campus France) funded my stay at EOST during my study.
Last but not the least, my sincerest gratitude goes to my family; my father Mostafa,
my mother Jehan and my wife Amal, who give me a deep support through all situations in
my life to help me in my work progress.
September 2017 Asem SALAMA
iii
Table of Contents Pages
FOREWORD ......................................................................................................... ii-iii

List of Figures ..........................................................................................................viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xv
ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................... xvi
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................xviii
RESUME ................................................................................................................. xxii
ϰΑήόϟ΍κΨϠϤϟ΍ .........................................................................................................xxxviii
Chapter I Introduction ...........................................................................................1-6
Chapter II Methodology .......................................................................................7-22

1-Seismotectonic methodology .................................................................................... 7
1.1.Stress inversion....................................................................................................... 7
2. Paleotsunami, methodology ..................................................................................... 8
2.1. Examples of cores and trenching in tsunami and paleotsunami research ... 10
2.2. a. X-ray scanning ......................................................................................... 11
2.2.b. Magnetic susceptibility............................................................................. 12
2.2.c. Sampling and Macrofossil detections ....................................................... 13
2.2.d. Geochemical analysis ............................................................................... 14
2.2.e. Radiocarbon dating ................................................................................... 17
3.Tsunami modeling ................................................................................................... 18
4. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 19
Chapter III Seismotectonic of northern Egypt .................................................23-67

3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 23
3.2. Geological and tectonic settings of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Egyptian
continental margin ...................................................................................................... 24
3.3. Geology and tectonics setting of Northern Egypt ............................................... 29
3.3. a. Northern Egypt fold-fault Belt ................................................................ 30
3.3. b. The northeast Desert (Cairo±Suez area) .................................................. 32
3.3. c. The Nile Delta ......................................................................................... 34
3.3.d. The Suez Rift ............................................................................................ 36
3.3.e -The Dead Sea fault and Gulf of Aqaba fault system ................................ 37
3.4. Seismicity and active tectonic zones ................................................................... 38
3.4.1. Historical earthquakes .............................................................................. 38
3.4.2. Instrumental Seismicity ............................................................................ 41
a-The September 12, 1955 Alexandria earthquake (Ms = 6.8) .......................... 44
b-The March 31, 1969, Shadwan Earthquake (Mw = 6.1) ................................. 44
c-The October 12, 1992, Cairo (Dahshour) earthquake (Mb = 5.8) ................... 44
d- The November 22, 1995, Gulf of Aqaba earthquake (Mw = 7.3) ................. 45
3.4.3. Active tectonic zones................................................................................ 45
3.5. Focal mechanisms data ........................................................................................ 46
iv
3.5. a. Egyptian continental margin .................................................................... 47
3.5.b. Dahshour zone .......................................................................................... 48
3.5.c. Cairo ±Suez zone ...................................................................................... 49
3.5.d. Northern Gulf of Suez zone...................................................................... 51
3.5.e. South Gulf of Suez zone ........................................................................... 51
3.5.f. Gulf of Aqaba............................................................................................ 54
3.6. Stress inversions .................................................................................................. 56
3.6. a. The Egyptian continental margin (Zone A, trend A and B) .................... 57
3.6.b. The Dahshour Zone (Zone B) .................................................................. 59
3.6. c. The Cairo Suez zone (Zone C) ................................................................ 59
3.6.d.Northern Gulf of Suez zone (Zone D) ....................................................... 60
3.6.e.South Gulf of Suez zone ( Zone E)............................................................ 61
3.5.5.e. Gulf of Aqaba subzone (subzone F) ...................................................... 61
3.6. f. Gulf of Aqaba subzone (subzone G) ........................................................ 61
3.7. Stresses field pattern and GPS results ................................................................. 63
Chapter IV Paleotsunami records in Northern Egypt͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘67-110

4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 67
4.2. Historical paleotsunamis of northern Egypt: ....................................................... 68
a-The 365 tsunamigenic event ............................................................................ 69
b-The 1303 tsunamigenic event ......................................................................... 70
c- The 24 June 1870 tsunamigenic event ........................................................... 71
4.3. Paleotsunami investigations ................................................................................ 71
4.3. a. Geomorphology features of the studied areas ......................................... 72
4.3.b. Cores and trenching .................................................................................. 76
4.3.c. Laboratory analysis................................................................................... 77
4.3.d. Trenching and coring description in the investigated sites ...................... 79
4.4. The composite section and chronology sequence of the tsunami layers ........... 103
4.5 Conclusion and Summary of results:.................................................................. 107
Chapter V Tsunami modelling and scenarios in the northern Egypt ........109-125

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 109
5.2. The eastern Hellenic arc scenario ...................................................................... 110
5.3. The western Hellenic arc scenario..................................................................... 114
5.3. Comparing my two scenarios with previous studies ......................................... 118
5.4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 119
Chapter VI CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................123-131
REFERENCES ................................................................................................133-149
APPENDICES .................................................................................................151-398
Appendix A:Focal mechanism and historical earthquakes .........................152-170
References ........................................................................................................ 167
Appendix B :XRD Diffraction ........................................................................171-289
Appendix C: Magnetic susceptibility .............................................................291-303
v
Appendix D: Grain size analysis ....................................................................305-362
Appendix E: Radiocarbon dating samples calibrated with Oxcal 2009 .....363-379
Appendix F :Theory and definitions ..............................................................381-394
1. Seismotectonic methodology ....................................................................... 381
2. Paleotsunami methodology .......................................................................... 389
3. Tsunami definition and shallow water equation........................................... 392
References ........................................................................................................ 396
Appendix G : 6FLHQWLILFSDSHUWLWOHGµ¶Paleotsunami deposits along the coast of Egypt
correlate with historical warthquake records of eastern Mediterraneanby Salama et
al., (submitted to the Journal of African Earth Sciences«««..««««399-421
vi
vii
List of Figures Pages
Fig.1: Seismic activity and tectonic map based on geological map of Libya (1985) 2
geological map of Egypt EMRA (2008), Bathworth 2008, and seismicity data for
north Egypt of NRIAG bulletin from 1997-2016 and the seismicity data of the
Eastern Mediterranean from IRIS bulletin.
Fig. 2: Bartington MS-2 Magnetic Susceptibility measurements. 13
Fig. 3: Collected samples in this study of 25 grams for grain size and X-ray 14
diffraction and totally organic and inorganic measurements
Fig. 4: Photos of the collected samples from cores and trenches in the studied area. 14
Fig. 5: Philips PW 1730 X-ray diffractometer used in the study. 16
Fig. 6: Photo of plant remains that were dated in our study in Beta Analytical 18
laboratory.
Fig. 7: Summary of the distribution of focal mechanisms for earthquakes along the 26
Hellenic trench constructed based on (Cavazza et al., 2004; Billi et al., 2011;
Benetatos et al., 2004); (see reference Table 14,15 of focal mechanism data in
Appendix A).
Fig. 8: Morphotectonic map of the Mediterranean with major, simplified 27

geological structures offshore constructed based on bathymetry data of ETOPO1 (1
min arc-minute global relief model of Earth's surface;
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/, Reilinger et al. 2006).
Fig. 9: Map of the Egyptian continental margin with major simplified geological 28
structures onshore and offshore based on tectonic tectonics structures elements
from (Abdel Aal et al. 1994); Egyptian geological map EMRA, 2008; bathymetry
data of ETOPO1 (1 min arc-minute global relief model of Earth's surface;
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/).
Fig. 10: Tectonic geological map of Sinai constructed based on Egyptian geology 31
map EMRA, 2008 using ArcGIS map version 10.2 Software.
Fig. 11 : Tectonic geology map of the north western Desert constructed based on 33
Egyptian geological survey EMRA, 2008 using ArcGIS map version 10.2
Software.
Fig. 12: Tectonic geological map of Cairo±Suez zone compiled structures elements 34
after (Abdel Aal et al. 1994; geology map EMRA, 2008) using ArcGIS map
version 10.2 Software.
viii
Fig. 13: Tectonic geological map of Nile Delta based on compiled structures by 36
(Abdel Aal et al. 1994, geologic map EMRA, 2008) using ArcGIS map version
10.2.
Fig. 14: (a) Generalized tectonic settings of the Aqaba by Hertman (2014). The 38
Evrona and Timna basins are mapped from bathymetric, gravimetric and magnetic
data Frieslander, (2000); ten Brink et al. (2007). (b) Schematic models of the deep
section of the basins Ben Avraham (1985) and ten Brink et al. (1999)).
Fig. 15: Historical earthquakes in Eastern Mediterranean and North Egypt (see 41
historical earthquakes references Table 13 of the historical earthquakes in
Appendix A
Fig. 16: The Egyptian National Seismological Network (ENSN) and the Nile Delta 43
strong motion stations in Egypt
Fig. 17: The seismicity LQ QRUWK (J\SW 0DJ DQG (DVWHUQ 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ 46
region (MDJ FRQVWUXFWHG EDVHG RQ 15,$* DQG ,5,6 EXOOHWLQV 7KH DFWLYH
zones in the northern Egypt based on the Abu Elenean 1997 and this study: a)
Egyptian continental margin, b) Dahashour zone, c) Cairo-Suez zone, d) Northern
Gulf of Suez, e) Southern Gulf of Suez, and f) Gulf of Aqaba
Fig. 18: Focal mechanisms of 19 earthquakes with ML DW WKH FRQWLQHQWDO 48
margin (see reference Tables 1 and 2 of focal mechanism solutions in Appendix
A).
Fig. 19: Focal mechanisms of 19 earthquakes ML DW the Dahshour area (see 49
reference Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix A).
Fig. 20: Focal mechanisms of 12 earthquakes with ML PDJQLWXGHLQ&DLUR- 50

Suez area (see reference Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix A).
Fig. 21: Focal mechanisms of 15 earthquakes with ML magnitude in the 52

northern of Gulf of Suez (see reference Tables 9 and 10 in Appendix A for the
focal mechanism solutions).
Fig. 22: Focal mechanisms of 29 earthquakes ML magnitude in south Gulf of 53

Suez (see reference Tables 11 and 12 in Appendix A for focal mechanism
solution).
ix
Fig. 23: Focal mechanisms of 36 earthquakes with ML magnitudes in Gulf of 55
Aqaba (see reference Table 8 in Appendix A for the focal mechanisms solutions).
Fig. 24: Rotational optimization method of the present day stress tensor deduced 58
from focal mechanisms data at continental margin Zone A, Trend A.
from focal mechanisms data at continental margin Zone A, Trend B.
from focal mechanisms data at Dahshour Zone Zone B.
from focal mechanisms data at Cairo-Suez zone, Zone C.
from focal mechanisms data at Northern Gulf of Suez, Zone D.
Fig. 29: Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal 61
mechanisms data at Southern Gulf of Suez, Zone E .
mechanisms data at Gulf of Aqaba, subzone F.
mechanisms data at Gulf of Aqaba, subzone G.
Fig. 32: Stress map of the North Egypt and Eastern Mediterranean region (this 66
map is constructed based on data from the calculated stress inversion in this study,
tensor and world stress data (http://www.world-stress-map.org/), Egyptian
geological map (EMRA, 2008), Reilinger et al. 2006, Saleh and Becker (2015).
Fig. 33: The location map of the studied areas in northern Egypt. 72
Fig. 34: The location and Geomorphology land forms map in the studied area by 75
Raslan (1995).
Fig. 35: Sand dunes along Mediterranean coast west Mersa Matrouh. 75
x
Fig. 36: Large boulders in Kefr Saber. 75
Fig. 37: Large boulders in Ras EL Hekma 76
Fig. 38: Show lagoons behind the sand dunes. 76
Fig. 39: Pumping machine to discharge the underground water 77
Fig. 40: Photo core dug using Cobra instrument. 77
Fig. 41: The end of core tube. 77
Fig. 42: The preparation of core. 78
Fig. 43 : Sampling sketch of the split cores : a) the archive core part ; b) the 78
working core part ; and c) the measurement analysis each 2 cm slices divided into
3 small part.
Fig. 44 : a) Coastal zone at Kefr Saber rich in boulders, b) Dendropoma fossils rich 79
in the boulders, and c) the location of the five trenches P1 to P5 at Kefr Saber.
Fig. 45: Description of trench no.1. The arrow reflects tsunami layer 1 which is 80
rich in broken shell fragments.
rich in broken shell fragments.
rich in broken shells fragments.
Fig. 48: Description of trench no.4. The arrow reflects tsunami layer 1. 83
Fig. 49 : Description of trench no.5. 83
Fig. 50: a) Dunes ; b) Paleoseismic site at El Alamein with white sand dune 84
deposits along the coast site (Google Earth image).
Fig. 51: Description of core no.1 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail 87
description of lithology, mean grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic
matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 166 m from the shoreline and reveals 3
main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse
sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The layers with high values of magnetic
susceptibility (especially for 1 and 3) and organic matter are interpreted as deposits
of tsunami origin.
xi
Fig. 52: Description of core no.1 section 2 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail 88
matter and bulk mineralogy. The fourth layer (see numbers and pointed hands) of
high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The
layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility and organic matter are
interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at s ~90 cm deep located south of core 1 at
~264 m from the shoreline. It reveals 2 main layers (see numbers and pointed
hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic
matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and
2) and organic matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at located at 270 m far from the shoreline
and the outlet of seawater. It reveals 3 main layers (see numbers and pointed
hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic
matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and
2 and 3) and with laminations at 2 and high organic matter are interpreted as
deposits of tsunami origin.
Fig. 55 : Description of core no.4 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail 91

matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 435 m from the shoreline 166 m from
the shoreline. It reveals 2 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high
energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The layers
with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and 3) and organic
matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 490 m distance from the shoreline and
the sedimentary succession does not show any possible sedimentary heigh energy
sedimentaey layer of tsunami origin.
of tsunami origin.
xii
of tsunami origin.
susceptibility (especially for 1, 2 and 3) and organic matter are interpreted as
deposits of tsunami origin.
sand with highly broken shells fragments and rich in organic matter. The high
values of magnetic susceptibility and organic matter point to the white coarse
sands with broken shells interpreted as tsunami deposits.
deposits of tsunami origin
of tsunami origin
Fig. 63 : Description of core no.12 section 1 with photography, x-ray scanning, 103
detail description of lithology, mean grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic
xiii
Fig. 64: Description of core no.12 section 2 with photography, x-ray scanning, 104
detail description of lithology, mean grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic
matter and bulk mineralogy. The fourth layer (see numbers and pointed hands) of
high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The
layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility and organic matter are
interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin
Fig. 65: Composite section for the trenches in Kefr Saber. 106
Fig. 66: Composite section for the cores in El Alamein. 107
Fig. 67: Bathymetry data from Gebco (2014) (30 arc seconds) with the location of 111
the fault rupture zone (box) along the Hellenic subduction between Crete and
Rhodos as the seismic source for the first scenario.
Fig. 68: Initial wave of the eastern Hellenic arc scenario 112
Fig. 69: Wave propagation at min 33 after the tsunami was triggered by an EH 112
source.
Fig. 70: The wave height after 50 minutes of wave propagation in the eastern 113
Hellenic arc scenario. Wave heights of 10 m reach northern Egypt.
Fig. 71 : The wave height after 66 minutes of wave propagation in the eastern 113
Fig. 72: The wave height after 80 minutes of wave propagation in the eastern 114
Fig. 73: Bathymetry data from Gebco (2014) (30 arc seconds) with the location of 115
the fault rupture zone (box) along the Hellenic subduction west of Crete as the
seismic source for the second scenario.
Fig. 74: Initial wave of the Western Hellenic arc scenario. 116
Fig. 75: The wave height after 33 minutes of wave propagation in the Western 116
Hellenic arc scenario.
xiv
Fig. 78: The wave height after 150 of wave propagation in the Western Hellenic 118
arc scenario.
Fig.79 a. wave height (m) with the time at Kefr Saber in West Hellenic scenario 120
Fig.79 b. wave height (m) with the time at El Alamein in West Hellenic scenario 120
Fig.79 c. wave height (m) against the time at Alexandria in West Hellenic scenario 121
Fig.79 d. wave height (m) against the time at Alexandria in East Hellenic scenario 121
Fig.79 e. wave height (m) against the time at Kefr Saber in East Hellenic scenario 121
Fig.79 f. wave height (m) against the time at EL Alamein in East Hellenic scenario 121
Fig. 80: The message types in case of local, regional, basin wide with earthquakes 132
magnitude
Pages
List of Tables
Table 1: Diffraction standard main peak identify minerals according to (ICDD) 17
Table 2: The earthquakes parameters and stress axes of the significant 44
earthquakes in northern Egypt.
Table 3: Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal 57
mechanisms in this study.
Table 4: Historical earthquakes and tsunamis effect on the north Egyptian coast 69
Table 5: Fault geometry and parameters (see Fig. 77) in the east Hellenic arc 111
used for our modelling and scenario.
Table 6: Fault configuration (see Fig. 73) in the west Hellenic arc used for our 115
modelling and scenario.
Table 7: Summary of different tsunami wave propagation and arrival time 119
scenarios in the Eastern Mediterranean from historical earthquake data.
Table 8: Summarized the possible warning tsunami message depend on historical 131
data.
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
Sh.min.: minmum shear (i.e.extension axis)
Sh.max.: maximum shear
XRD:X-ray diffraction
Lat.: Latitude
Long.:Longitude
GPS: Global Positioning System
CAIP: Central Africa Intra plate
EMRA:Egyptian Mineral Resources Authority
NRIAG: National Insitute of geophysics and Astronomy
NEIC: National Earthquake Information Center
ENSN:Egyptian National Seismology Network
CMT: Harvard Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog
GFZ: German Research Centre for Geosciences
GMT: Greenish Mean Time
IRIS: Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
EHA: Eastern Hellenic arc
WHA: Western Hellenic arc
xvi
xvii
Active tectonics and Paleo-tsunami records
of the Northern Coast of Egypt
SUMMARY
The aim of my thesis is: 1) to study of the main active and tsunamigenic zones in the
Eastern Mediterranean and northern Egypt. The characterization of active faults has been
identified from the Red Sea area in the east to Salloum in the west. Historical and
instrumental data are used to determine the seismic activity of the faults. I also compile the
geology and active faults, seismicity, focal mechanisms, and proceed with stress tensor
inversions that help to 1) identify the present day stress field in northern Egypt and adjacent
Mediterranean regions 2) to analyze the stratigraphy of tsunami deposits through trenching
and coring in two selected sites; EL Alamein and Kefr Saber. Trenches and cores
investigations enable us tocorrelate the paleotsunami deposits with the sequences of
historical tsunamis documented in the historical seismicity catalogue; and 3) to model
maximum wave height and travel times to the Egyptian coast from the worst case
scenariosfrom the main seismic zones of the Eastern and Western Hellenic arc. This help in
estimating the wave height and travel times as away for seismic hazard and risk assessment,
and mitigate its effects in northern Egypt.
My thesis includes six chapters. The main items of these chapters are summarized as
follows: -
Chapter I Introduction: This chapter introduces the steps and objectives of my study
and the previous international methodology used in the active tectonics and paleo tsunamis
studies all over the world in the last 20 years. The paleotsunami studies help in the
identification of tsunami deposits thousands of years in the world. This chapter also includes
the methodology used to study the seismotectoniccharacteristics and paleotsunami deposits.
It also discusses the importance of this study in northern Egypt as the north of Egypt
includes ancient Egyptian cultural heritage (i.e.Pharaohs archaeological sites) and the
development of National strategic projects; in addition of the construction of new cities
along the Egyptian coast. This chapter continues describing the basis of tsunami modelling
to estimate the wave height and the travel time to the northern coast of Egypt and far-field
effects from seismic sources of the Eastern and Western Hellenic arcs.
Chapter II Methodology: This chapter introduces the work methodologies. The

methodology is classified into three stages. The first stage is a concern with seismotectonic,
focal mechanisms and their parameters and the stress tensor inversion and its definition. The
xviii
parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal mechanisms data are
calculated using the Tensor program version 5.8.6 of 23 November 2016 for the six active
zones. This method used as the Right Dihedron method and the Rotational Optimization
method. The Rotational Optimization method has used in the determination of the four stress
parameters, ı ııDQGVWUHVVUDWLR5 ı- ııO- ıused stress Tensor program to
calculate these parameters (Delvaux and Sperner,1993). The second stage concern with
Paleotsunami methodology, the main items to identify the tsunami deposits is by the
tsunami signatures and the laboratories measurements include X-ray scanning , magnetic
susceptibility, grain size analysis (i.e. mean size and sorting calculated according to
Folk,1968 equations), sampling and macrofossil detections, XRD analysis to identify the
minerals, total organic and inorganic matter measurements and carbon dating methodology
and its history as effective tools for the scientists in dating. The third stage concerns with the
tsunami modelling methodology. Modeling was which carried out using two worst sceneries
to estimate the wave height and travel time across the Egyptian coasts.
The chapter III presents seismotectonic of the northern part of Egypt and show the
tectonic and geologic framework of the active zones in northern Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean. The historical and instrumental seismicity was collected from 2200BC to
2016 in the Eastern Mediterranean and northern Egypt. Six seismic tectonic sources are
recognized in northern of Egypt: the Egyptian continental margin (Trend A and Trend B),
Dahashour zone, Cairo-Suez zone, Northern Gulf of Suez, Southern Gulf of Suez, Gulf of
Aqaba (subzones f and g). We also collected all focal mechanisms of earthquakes that
occurred in active tectonics zones in and around the northern Egypt from 1951 to 2016.
Focal mechanism solutions are for magnitude ML IRUORFDOHDUWKTXDNHVDQG0L IRU
the continental margin from the published data in different journals for the Egyptian
territory. The inversion method of Delvaux and Sperner(2003) and Delvaux et al.(2010) is
used for evaluating the stress field parameters in northern Egypt using the focal mechanisms
of earthquakes.
The stress inversion results obtained in the northern Egypt active zones reflect an
extensional stress regime with stress regime index value between 0.5 ± 1, except for the
trend B in the Egyptian continental margin zone A which shows the value 2.12 and
acompressive regime index. The Tamsah and Baltim trend in the East continental margin is
characterized by low seismicity data;where the stress orientation indicates N-S (Baltim
trend) and NE-SW (Tamash trend) and a secondary E-W to NW-SE orientation observed
from 11 petroleum wells Tingay et al. (2011). In this study, the present day stress map is
xix
constructed based on the calculated stresses from collected focal mechanism data and the
borehole breakout data in the study area and the GPS vector velocities calculated by
Reilinger et al. (2006).
Chapter IV Paleotsunami: This chapter describes the effects of large historical

tsunamis like 21 July 365, 8 August 1303, 24 June 1870 on the northern Egyptian coast and
adjacent Mediterranean region coasts. The WVXQDPL LQIRUPDWLRQ¶V was preserved in the
historical documents and recent catalogues like Ambrasey (2009) and Guidoboni (2009).
The fieldwork was carried out using trenching and coring at Kefr Saber and El Alamein sites
to distinguish and recognize the stratigraphy of tsunami deposits according to their
characteristics and signatures. The two selected sites were chosen according to
geomorphological and geological aspects. The two selected sites are located in the
northwestern part of the Mediterraneancoast and northern part of the Western Desert which
is covered mainly by a thin blanket of Miocene rocks forming a vast persistent limestone
plateau. It extends from the western side of the Nile valley and delta in the east to El-
Salloum in the west and from the Mediterranean coastal plain in the north to the Qattara and
Siwa depression in the south (El-Bastwasy, 2008). This area is affected structurally by E-W
trending faults and from the east and the south with Qattara ± Alamein ridge and located in
the north with Alamein faults NW-SE trends. The Egyptian coastlineis characterized by
hummocky and rocky platforms and sand dunes along shorlines with variable heights
ranging from 5 to 20 PHWHUV¶maximum. The obtained chronology and dating results with the
stratigraphic succession and tsunami signatures are summarized by two composite sections
in Kefr Saber and El Alamein. The Kefr Saber site shows only one white tsunami layer with
reworked broken shells compared with 21 July 365 tsunami event while the El Alamein site
shows four tsunami layers which are compared with 1600 BC Santorini, 21 July 365, 8
August 1303 and the recent of 24 June 1870 tsunami events.
Chapter V consists in the tsunami modelling andscenarios in the northern Egypt.In

this chapterI take as an example the significant recent tsunami modelling such as the
massive tsunami generated by the major East Japan Tohoku earthquake of Mw 9.0 on
March11, 2011, with a maximum wave height that reached 19.5 m at Sendai Plain (Mori et
al., 2011). In my work, two simple scenarios are constructed using the Mirone software
update version 2.7.0 last modified on 22 October 2016 (Luis, 2007) using the data from
thetsunami deposits of 21 July 365 and 8 August 1303 AD. Two worst scenarios are chosen
to estimated wave height and travel times depending on the historical information of the
source locations and fault ruptures calculated by Stiros (2010) and Pagnoni et al. (2015).
xx
The estimated fault mechanism depends on the recent large earthquakes events in the
Hellenic zone.
Our worst scenario for the Eastern Hellenic arcshow that the wave arrival time to the
Egyptian coast is 33 minutes and with maximum wave height ranging from 7-10 m at Kefr
Saber while for the El Alamein area shows an expected arrival time of about 50 minutes.
The Western Hellenic scenario shows much longer PLQXWHV¶arrival time with amaximum
wave height of 0.88 ± 1.76 m at Kefr Saber and 0.42-0.87 m wave height at El Alamein after
100 minutes. The simulation results agree well with Hassan (2013) in the estimated wave
heights at Salloum, Alexandria and Domietta. However, our results show a higher estimated
wave height at Matrouh and El Arish for the Eastern Hellenic arc scenario. In case of the
Western Hellenic scenario, the estimated wave height coincides with Shaw et al. (2008) at
Alexandria but itdiffers in the travel time arrival of the waves.
Chapter VI, this chapter is the final conclusive that show the final results obtained
from seismicity, focal mechanisms, calculated stress inversion, geodetic data to identify the
present day deformation and the main stress tectonic regime in the north Egypt and south
eastern Mediterranean. The main result is that the whole northern Egypt is considered as a
part of extensional regime except the Egyptian continental margin. Based on the
paleotsunami study, the main tsunamigenic seismic sources with possible Mw > 8 in the
Eastern Mediterranean region (eastern and western Hellenic arc) are taken into
consideration. These arcs were considered as the the most hazaradous subduction zone and
source segments of the possible future tsunamis in this region for northern Egypt. The
results obtained from the trenching at Kefr Saber are correlatedwith 21 July 365 in Kefr
Saber, while the four tsunami layers in cores at El Alamein site are correlated with the
historical tsunami events of 1600 BC, 21 July 365, 8 August 1303, 24 June 1870. This
chapter ends with the perspective for the seismotectonicsof Egypt including the study of El
Alamein active Quaternary fault and more investigation of paleotsunamideposits. In this
thesis, I also suggest warning messages depending on historical data, simulation data as a
function of tsaunmigenic earthquake magnitudes to be provided for the decision-makers in
case of tsunami hazard. A second recommendation includes the preparation of an Early
warning system for tsunami hazards.
xxi
Recherche sur les traces et dépôts de tsunami le long de la côte
PpGLWHUUDQpHQQHGHO¶(J\SWH&RQWH[WHVismotectonique et modélisation
RÉSUMÉ
/¶REMHFWLIGHFHWWHWKqVHFRQVLVWHHQ O¶pWXGHGHV]RQHVDFWLYHVHWWVXQDPLJpQLTXHV
GHO¶HVWPpGLWHUUDQpHQHWGXQRUGGHO¶(J\SWHLQFOXDQWODFDUDFWpULVDWLRQGHVIDLOOHVDFWLYHVHW
sismogènes et des données GPS dHSXLVOHVERUGXUHVGHOD0HU5RXJHMXVTX¶DX6DOORXPHW
frontière avec la Libye. Une recherche sur la sismicité historique et instrumentale associée à
des travaux sur les failles actives et mécanismes au foyer des principaux séismes avec une
étude sur le tenseur de contrainte est utilisée afin de déterminer les caractéristiques de la
GpIRUPDWLRQ DFWLYH GX 1RUG GH O¶(J\SWH GHV WUDYDX[ VXU OHV GpS{WV F{WLHUV SRXYDQW
receler des traces de tsunamis par le biais de tranchées et sondages carottées, notamment sur
GHX[VLWHVj.HIU6DEHUORFDOLWpVLWXpHjO¶RXHVWGH0DUVD0DWURXKHW j(O$ODPHLQ8QH
corrélation des dépôts catastrophiques datés avec le catalogue de sismicité historique de
O¶(J\SWHHWGHO¶HVWPpGLWHUUDQpHQSHUPHWXQHUHFRQQDLVVDQFHGHVSULQFLSDux tsunamis ayant
affecté les régions côtières. 3) Une modélisation des tsunamis liés aux séismes majeurs de la
]RQHGHVXEGXFWLRQKHOOpQLTXHMXVTX¶DX[UpJLRQVF{WLqUHVGHO¶(J\SWHPRQWUHODKDXWHXUGH
YDJXHVSRWHQWLHOOHHWOHVLPSOLFDWLRQVVXUO¶DOpDVLVPique.
Cette thèse est organisée suivant six chapitres que je résume comme suit :
Chapitre (I) Introduction: Ce chapitre présente les étapes et les objectifs de mon
étude et la méthodologie internationale précédente utilisée dans les études de tectonique
active et de paléotsunamis dans le monde entier au cours des 20 dernières années. Les études
sur le paléo tsunami aident à identifier les dépôts de tsunamis depuis des milliers d'années
dans le monde. L'identification des dépôts de tsunami par l'analyse des sédiments de surface
(âge de l' Holocène) collectée à l'aide de carottages et par comparaison avec les dépôts
actuels de tsunami observés ailleurs (Sicile, Algérie, Tohoku, Sumatra). La complexité de la
dynamique côtière est prise en compte par l'étude des processus sédimentaires côtiers,
paléoenvironnementaux et des fluctuations du niveau de la mer durant l'Holocène. En effet,
l'existence de fossiles marins dans un environnement continental associé au développement
d'espèces telles qu' ostracodes, diatomées, gastéropodes, plantes aquatiques peut indiquer
des changements de salinité à long terme associés aux inondations soudaines du tsunami
(Kortekaas et Dawson, 2007).
Par exemple, le long de la côte de Kiritappu au Japon, Nanayama et al. (2003) ont
identifié des plaques de sable s'étendant sur 3 kilomètres à l'intérieur des terres, montrant de
xxii
grands tsunamis inondés tous les 500 ans en moyenne entre 2000 et 7000 ans. De même, une
étude d'un record de 7000 ans dans un lac côtier de l'Oregon (ouest des Etats-Unis), Kelsey
et al (2005) a identifié 12 dépôts de paléotsunami au cours des 4600 dernières années.
D'autres enregistrements de tsunamis multiples ont été étudiés au Chili (Cisternas et al.,
2005). Le long de la côte sud de l'île Andaman, en Inde, Malik et ses collaborateurs (2015)
ont identifié trois séismes historiques et des tsunamis transocéaniques associés au cours des
1000 dernières années, en fonction de la stratigraphie des dépôts et des datations associées.
En Méditerranée, parmi les études sur les paléo-tsunamis, De Martini et al. (2012) ont
identifié deux dépôts de tsunamis au cours du premier millénaire avant J.-C. et un autre en
650-770 après J.-C. et ont estimé un intervalle de récurrence moyen pour les tsunamis forts
d'env. 385 ans (en utilisant la chronologie comprennent C14, Pb 210 et Cs 13, OSL et
téphrochronologie) le long de la côte orientale de la Sicile, en Italie. Le long de la côte
algérienne, Maouche et al. (2009) ont identifié la présence de gros blocs de Tipaza à Dellys
comme étant liée à des événements de tsunamis en 419 et 1700 en utilisant la datation au
radiocarbone des bioindicateurs.
Les principales idées et fondements méthodologiques de mon travail y sont inclus
PHWWDQW HQ pYLGHQFH OHV LPSOLFDWLRQV VXU O¶pYDOXDWLRQ GX ULVTXe de tsunami sur le nord de
O¶(J\SWHFHFL WHQDQW FRPSWHGHO¶LPSRUWDQFHGHV VLWHV DUFKpRORJLTXHV GHV UpJLRQV SURFKHV
G¶$OH[DQGULHHWGXSURMHWGHFHQWUDOHQXFOpDLUHGH'DEDD'HVH[HPSOHVGHPRGpOLVDWLRQGH
tsunami et de hauteurs de vague sont également présentés. Ce chapitre continue de décrire
les bases de la modélisation des tsunamis pour estimer la hauteur des vagues et le temps de
trajet jusqu'à la côte nord de l'Égypte et les effets de champ lointain provenant des sources
sismiques des arcs helléniques de l'Est et de l'Ouest. À la fin du chapitre I; il résume
brièvement les idées principales des chapitres de thèse.
Le chapitre II montre les méthodes utilisées lors des travaux de cette thèse que je
FODVVH VXLYDQW WURLV SULQFLSDOHV DSSURFKHV /¶DQDO\VH GH OD VLVPRWHFWRQLTXH G¶XQH ]RQH
active basée notamment sur les failles actives et les mécanismes au foyer des séismes
majeurs associés. Ces travaux GpFULYHQWODGpWHUPLQDWLRQGXFKDPSGHFRQWUDLQWHııHW
ıSDUOHFDOFXOG¶XQWHQVHXUXWLOLVDQWO¶LQYHUVLRQGHVGRQQpHVGHVPpFDQLVPHVGHIDLOOHSDU
la méthode « Right Dihedron ª 3RXU FHOD M¶XWLOLVH OH SURJUDPPH 7(1625 'HOYDX[
1993). Cette méthode consiste à séparer les données brutes du mécanisme focal collecté de
1951 à 2016 en sous-ensembles tout en optimisant le tenseur des contraintes à l'aide de la
méthode « Right Dihedron » et de l'Optimisation rotationnelle pour chaque zone active. La
méthode d'optimisation rotationnelle a été utilisée pour la détermination des quatre
paramètres de contrainte, ı1, ı2, ı3 et le rapport de contrainte R = (ı2 - ı3) / (ıl - ı3);
xxiii
utilisé le programme Tensor de stress pour calculer ces paramètres (Delvaux et Sperner,
1993). L'indice du régime de contrainte (R ') est calculé numériquement avec le logiciel
Tensor pour chaque zone sismique active du nord de l'Egypte. Il est défini en fonction de
l'orientation de l'ellipsoïde de contrainte selon Delvaux et al (1997). Elle est exprimée en
extension lorsque ıl est verticale, en décrochement lorsque ı2 est verticale et en
compression lorsque ı3 est verticale. R 'a des valeurs de 0-1 pour les régimes d'extension, 1-
2 pour les régimes de décrochement, et 2-3 pour les régimes de compression. A cette
UHFKHUFKHM¶DVVRFLHXQHpWXGHVXUOHVGRQQpHVJpRGpVLTXHV*36TXLPRQWUHOHVSULncipales
GLUHFWLRQVHWYLWHVVHVGHODGpIRUPDWLRQDFWLYHGXQRUGGHO¶(J\SWH/DUHFKHUFKHVXUOHV
enregistrements de tsunami dans les niveaux géologiques a été développées récemment. En
HIIHWGHVWUDYDX[PRQWUHQWODSRVVLELOLWpG¶LGHQWLILHUGHVGpS{WV catastrophiques côtiers liés
DX[ WVXQDPLV 3RXU FHOD M¶XWLOLVH GHV PHVXUHV GH JUDQXORPpWULH HQ ODERUDWRLUH DYHF
utilisation des équations de Folk (1968) incluant la sélection de la taille des grains de
sédiment, la détermination des espèces fossiles (notamment foraminifères, gastéropodes et
lamellibranches, des analyse aux rayons X des dépôts de sondage carottés et détermination
des contenus minéralogiques par la méthode XRD donnant des standards PDFs (obtenus à
partir des radiation Cu.Į), des mesures des proportions en matière organique, et des
mesures de susceptibilité magnétique des niveaux géologiques. Ces travaux sont complétés
SDU XQ SUpOqYHPHQW G¶pFKDQWLOORQV GH VDEOH DYHF SURSRUWLRQ LPSRUWDQWH HQ TXDUW] HW
feldspath), charbon, os, test de fossile, matière organique et pour des datations isotopique
OSL-TL et C14 nécessaire pour la datation des niveaux géologiques. 3) La troisième étape
concerne la méthodologie de modélisation des tsunamis. La modélisation du tsunami a été
réalisée à l'aide du logiciel Mirone développé par Luis (2007) version mise à jour 2.7 la
dernière mise à jour le 22 octobre 2016. Ce logiciel utilisait le code TINTOL (NSWING)
pour effectuer le tsunami modélisation de la propagation et de l'inondation ''. Le code
modélise la propagation des tsunamis en utilisant la grille de bathymétrie (telle qu'utilisée
dans cette étude des données de gebco 2014 de 30 secondes d'arc) et identifie la déformation
initiale par le modèle d'Okada (1985). Un événement tsunamigène a été examiné pour
étudier l'effet de l'emplacement, la direction, le temps de voyage et la hauteur vers la côte
égyptienne. Les caractéristiques des tsunamis, telles que les temps de déplacement et la
distribution de la hauteur des vagues, sont calculées, ce qui est utile pour évaluer le risque de
tsunami. Ceci est fait en utilisant les zones d'inondation estimées et la comparaison avec la
hauteur et le dépôt des vagues du tsunami pour aider à déterminer l'intensité des séismes
tsunamigènes et leur impact sur la côte nord de l'Egypte.
xxiv
Le chapitre III traite de la sismotectonique sismotectonique de la partie nord de
l'Egypte et montre le cadre tectonique et géologique des zones actives du nord de l'Egypte et
de la Méditerranée orientale. La sismicité historique et instrumentale a été collectée entre
2200 avant le siècle a' 2016 en Méditerranée orientale et au nord de l'Egypte. Six sources
tectoniques sismiques sont reconnues dans le nord de l'Égypte: la marge continentale
égyptienne (Tendance A et Tendance B), la zone Dahashour, la zone Le Caire-Suez, le nord
du golfe de Suez, le sud du golfe de Suez et le golfe d'Aqaba. . Nous avons également
collecté tous les mécanismes focaux des séismes survenus dans ces zones de tectonique
active de 1951 à 2016. Les solutions du mécanisme focaOVRQWGHPDJQLWXGHSRXUOHV
VpLVPHVORFDX[HW0/SRXUODPDUJHFRQWLQHQWDOHGHVGRQQpHVSXEOLpHVGDQVGLIIpUHQWV
journaux égyptiens. territoire.
J'ai compilé les solutions du mécanisme focal et calculé les inversions de contraintes
du catalogue sismique de l'Egypte, recherché et cartographié les failles actives, et utilisé les
données de forage pour développer une analyse sismotectonique de la distribution des
contraintes dans ma région d'étude. Les données sismologiques et les mécanismes focaux
associés sont considérés comme une excellente source d'informations sur la direction du
stress dans la croûte, qui fournit des informations précises sur le champ de stress actuel dans
la région de la Méditerranée orientale et le nord de l'Egypte. Plusieurs études portent sur les
inversions sismotectoniques et de stress en Afrique du Nord et en Méditerranée orientale
telles que (Bohnhoff et al., 2005, Delvaux, 2010, Heidbach et al., 2010, Tingay, 2011,
Meghraoui et Pondrelli, 2012, Nocquet, 2012; et Hussein, 2013). L'installation de nouvelles
stations GPS en Egypte complète l'image de la déformation active dans le coin nord-est du
continent africain et du déplacement vers le nord de la Nubie nord-est par rapport à l'Eurasie
(McClusky et al., 2000, Reilinger et al. 2006, Mahmoud et al., 2005, Saleh et Becker, 2015,
Pietrantonio et al., 2016).
Nos travaux de collecte de solutions de plans de fautes et de calcul des inversions de
contraintes des paramètres de défaut à l'aide du logiciel Tensor version 5.8.5 (version
Windows, dernière mise à jour le 27/07/2016,
http://www.damiendelvaux.be/Tensor/WinTensor/win-tensor.html) dans les six zones
actives dans le nord de l'Egypte sont résumées comme suit:-
La première zone active dans le nord de l'Égypte; est la zone continentale égyptienne
(A) qui était située au sud de la crête de la mer Méditerranée derrière la plaine abyssale
d'Hérodote où le fond de la mer est occupé par l'éventail profond du Nil, le mont sous-marin
d'Eratosthène et le bassin d'Hérodote. Il représente une zone de transition entre les croûtes
continentales-océaniques où le champ de contraintes passe de la tension dominante à
xxv
l'intérieur des terres égyptiennes à la compression dominante le long de l'arc hellénique. Le
cadre tectonique et la structure de la marge continentale égyptienne sont le résultat de
l'interaction entre trois principales tendances de la faille: la zone Temsah nord-ouest-sud-est;
la zone de Rosetta nord-est-sud-ouest et la direction est-ouest de la faille continentale ENE-
WSW (Abdel Aal et al., 1994).
Les plus grands séismes historiques de la marge continentale égyptienne sont les
tremblements de terre 320 et 956, tandis que le tremblement de terre instrumental le plus
important a eu lieu le 12 septembre 1955 avec Ms 6.7 (Costantinescu et al., 1966) sur le
plateau continental du delta du Nil. Les événements sismiques historiques des années 320 et
956 se sont produits au nord de l'épicentre du tremblement de terre du 12 septembre 1955
(Korrat et al., 2005). Ces tremblements de terre ont été suivis par d'autres grands
événements survenus dans les 57 ans de l'événement du 19 octobre 2012 à 03: 35: 11.2, avec
Mb 5.1 selon le Centre sismologique euro-méditerranéen (EMSC). Le séisme récent d'El
Alamein s'est produit les 03 septembre 2015 (ML = 4.5) et la faille d'El Alamein a été
considérée comme une continuation de la zone de faille AL Qattara-EL Alamein qui s'étend
de la zone de Rosetta dans la marge continentale.
Les résultats de 19 mécanismes focaux collectés dans la marge continentale
égyptienne (Zone A, tendance A, B et zone adjacente montrent deux types de régimes
tectoniques): Le premier groupe de mécanismes est représenté par NW Oblique (normal -
dextrale) failles et la seconde est représentée par des failles EW à ENE (reverse - latéral
gauche) L 'inversion de contrainte de notre étude de la zone marginale égyptienne est
classée en deux tendances principales A, B. L' inversion de contrainte de la tendance A
représente les contraintes dans la tendance de Rosetta et s'est poursuivie avec la distribution
des contraintes d'Alexandrie à la marge d'El Alamein (Qattara - EL Alamein Ridge).
L'inversion de contrainte de la tendance B comprenait 8 solutions de mécanismes focaux, ce
qui représente les contraintes parallèles à la tendance de Rosetta jusqu'à la région de Mars
Matrouh L'indice du régime de contrainte R 'de la tendance B est de 2.12 et montre une
compression pure (TF) avec Tensor Quality B.
Les tendances de Tamash et Baltim à l'est de la marge continentale sont caractérisées
par de faibles données de sismicité. L'orientation du stress de l'étude en petits groupes de
Tingay et al. (2011) utilisant 11 puits sur le front du delta du Nil indique un N-S dominant à
NE-SW Sh. orientation maximale et une orientation secondaire E-W à NW-SE. Nos
résultats de stress ne concordent pas avec les données de trou de fracture de (Tingay et al.,
2011) dans le cas de la tendance de Rosetta, car les données de forage ont une faible
profondeur plutôt que la profondeur des séismes.
xxvi
La deuxième zone active dans le nord de l'Egypte est la zone de Dahshour (B). Cette
zone est située dans la partie nord du désert occidental et à l'ouest de la zone Le Caire -
Suez. Le plus grand événement dans la zone de Dahshour avec M L 5.9 est l'événement du 12
octobre 1992 qui a causé de gros dégâts principalement au Caire (voir le chapitre III pour
des informations détaillées). 15 mécanismes focaux collectés dans cette zone montrent des
failles normales avec des plans nodaux orientés NW-SE à E-W avec une composante
décroissante (Maamoun et al., 1993; Hussein, 1999). L'inversion de contrainte calculée dans
la zone de Dahshour résulte de 19 mécanismes focaux dans cette zone, produisant un régime
de stress étendu caractérisé par des failles de tendance NE-SW avec N25° E Shmin. L'indice
de contrainte R 'est de 0.69, ce qui est compatible avec le défaut normal et la composante de
décrochement; la qualité du Tenseur est B. Ces résultats concordent avec l'inversion de
contrainte calculée par Hussein et al. (2013).
La troisième zone active dans le nord de l'Egypte est la zone de Suez du Caire (C)
située à l'ouest du golfe de Suez en suivant la route du Caire Suez et au nord du désert
oriental. Les deux grands événements sismiques sont survenus les 29 septembre 1984, ML =
4.5 et le 29 avril 1974 de ML = 4.6. La plupart des mécanismes enregistrés montrent
principalement des failles normales pures et une source oblique de la composante normale
avec les tendances E-W et NWN-SES et NW-SE en accord avec la direction générale de la
direction des failles exposées. Les inversions du tenseur des contraintes sont appliquées à 12
événements de mécanismes focaux pour la zone Cairo-Suez. L'inversion des mécanismes
focaux des tremblements de terre dans cette zone produit un régime de contrainte étendu
caractérisé par des failles de tendance NE-SW avec N18.7°E Sh-min. L'indice de contrainte
est R'= 0.69 représentant un défaut normal avec une composante de défauts de frappe
(transtensive) de qualité Tenseur A. L'optimisation rotationnelle des défauts réels montre un
tenseur de contrainte de qualité A.
La quatrième zone active située dans le nord de l'Egypte est au nord de la zone du
golfe de Suez (D) et est considérée comme un rift continental néogène qui a évolué comme
un bras de la triple jonction du Sinaï avec le golfe d'Aqaba et la mer Rouge. . Dagett et al.
(1986) l'ont considérée comme une zone active malgré l'absence de grands séismes dans
cette zone. Les 15 solutions focales collectées sont caractérisées par des mécanismes de
failles normales. Les avions nodaux ont des directions proches de NW-SE à NNW-SSE. Le
reste des solutions présente des mouvements obliques ou purs de glissement. 14 événements
de mécanismes focaux pour le nord du golfe de Suez sont appliqués aux inversions du
tenseur des contraintes. L'inversion des mécanismes focaux des tremblements de terre dans
xxvii
cette zone donne un régime de stress étendu pur caractérisé par des failles de tendance NE-
SW avec N44E Sh-min. L'indice du régime de contrainte est R '= 0.64. Cette valeur est
cohérente avec un régime normal de défaut et d'extension, où l'optimisation rotationnelle des
défauts réels montre la qualité du Tenseur A.
La cinquième zone active dans le nord de l'Egypte est le sud du golfe de Suez (E).
Les deux plus grands tremblements de terre sont enregistrés dans cette zone, à savoir les
tremblements de terre de l'île de Shadwan le 31 mars 1969 (ML = 6.1); et le 28 juin 1972
(ML = 5.0). Les 29 mécanismes de failles normales du mécanisme focal collecté avec les
tendances NW-SE. Les inversions du tenseur des contraintes ont été appliquées à 28
mécanismes focaux du sud du golfe de Suez. L'inversion des mécanismes focaux des
tremblements de terre dans cette zone donne lieu à un régime de stress important caractérisé
par des failles de tendance NE-SW avec N27.8 ° E Sh-min. L'indice du régime de contrainte
est R '= 0.51 et la qualité du Tenseur A.
La sixième zone active dans le nord de l'Egypte est la zone du golfe d'Aqaba (sous-
zones F, G) considérée comme une région source d'activité intense qui constitue la
principale limite de la plaque tectonique entre l'Afrique (Sinaï) et l'Arabie. Le plus grand
séisme enregistré (Mw = 7.2) est survenu le 22 novembre 1995. Les 36 solutions focales
présentent des failles normales avec un décrochement latéral gauche ou un décrochement
avec une composante normale mineure, tandis que certains événements reflètent un
mécanisme de failles normal. . La plupart des événements montrent des axes T
approximativement dans la direction NNE à N-S et NW. Les inversions du tenseur des
contraintes ont été appliquées à 7 événements de mécanismes focaux pour la zone F de la
zone du golfe d'Aqaba. Cette zone est située au nord de 29° de latitude. L'inversion des
mécanismes focaux dans cette zone montre des failles normales, où l'indice du régime de
contrainte est R '= 0.89, N72.3ºE pour Sh-min et Tensor qualité A. La sous-zone G est située
au sud de 29 ° de latitude, où le stress les inversions tensorielles sont appliquées à 27
mécanismes focaux. L'indice du régime de contrainte est R'= 0.98, avec N 59.3° E Shmin et
Tensor Qualité A. L'inversion des mécanismes focaux des tremblements de terre dans cette
zone donne un défaut normal avec la composante décroissante.
Pour compléter l'image de la déformation et de la direction des contraintes, j'ai

également compilé dans le chapitre III: a) les vecteurs de vitesse GPS pour estimer le taux
de déformation (Reilinger et al., 2006); b) l'inversion de contrainte calculée dans cette étude
en utilisant la version 5.8.6 du programme Tensor du 23/11/2016 (Delvaux et al., 2010); c)
les contraintes calculées par les études sur les forages de puits de pétrole (Tingay, 2011); d)
xxviii
les contraintes de la carte mondiale des contraintes (http://www.world-stress-map.org/) dans
la région de la Méditerranée orientale et le nord de l'Egypte pour avoir une image complète
de la distribution actuelle des contraintes. La principale conclusion des résultats du stress
montre que l'ensemble de l'Égypte septentrionale est soumise à un régime de stress
d'extension, à l'exception de la marge continentale égyptienne qui montre des tendances à la
compression. Ce régime de stress fonctionne actuellement dans la plupart des régions du
nord de l'Egypte comme des failles normales et des glissements avec des tendances Shmin
N-NNE.
Chapitre IV Paléontunami: Ce chapitre décrit les effets de grands tsunamis

historiques comme le 21 juillet 365, le 8 août 1303, le 24 juin 1870 sur la côte égyptienne
septentrionale et les côtes méditerranéennes adjacentes. Les informations sur le tsunami ont
été conservées dans les documents historiques et les catalogues récents comme Ambrasey
(2009) et Guidoboni (2009). À l'heure actuelle, les données du paléosunami n'existent que
pour un nombre limité de régions sismiquement actives du monde. L'arc hellénique et la
zone de subduction connexe sont considérés comme la source dangereuse des tsunamis qui
ont pu affecter la côte nord égyptienne dans le passé et générer des tsunamis dans le futur.
On supposait que la ville de Thonis - Heracleion avait sombré à cause d'un tsunami survenu
dans le passé (??). Cette ville a été fondée en 331 avant J.-C et était un port d'entrée en
Egypte et le Nil pour tous les navires venant de la région grecque. Un fort tremblement de
terre s'est produit le 21 juillet 365 dans le segment ouest de l'arc hellénique, avec des signes
de soulèvement et de basculement jusqu'à 9 m dans l'île de Crète (Stiros, 2010). Cet
événement a provoqué un tsunami qui a dévasté la ville d'Alexandrie en Égypte et a envoyé
un mur d'eau à travers la Méditerranée vers la côte nord-africaine et toute la Méditerranée
orientale, y compris le sud de l'Italie (Ambraseys, 2009). Les navires dans le port à
Alexandrie ont été renversés pendant que l'eau près de la côte a reculé soudainement. Les
rapports indiquent que beaucoup de gens se sont précipités pour piller les navires
malheureux (cela a été mentionné par Ammianus Marcellinus qui a vécu pendant ce temps à
Ambrayses (2009) .La vague de tsunami s'est ensuite précipitée dedans et a porté les navires
au-dessus des murs de mer. A Alexandrie, environ 5000 personnes ont perdu la vie et 50 000
maisons ont été détruites Le tremblement de terre du 8 août 1303 a été considéré comme le
deuxième plus grand séisme et tsunami de la côte égyptienne. les effets effrayants de ce raz
de marée sismique exceptionnel (tsunami) qui a frappé de nombreuses localités du bassin
méditerranéen (Ambrayses 2009) Guidoboni et Comastri (2005) ont suggéré que cette vague
de mer étendue a été causée par un tremblement de terre et son épicentre entre les îles de
Crète et Rhodes.
xxix
A partir de l'étude des événements sismotectoniques et paléotsunami d'origine
sismique en Egypte orientale et septentrionale, quatre zones actives sont identifiées comme
étant à l'origine d'éventuels tsunamis. L'arc hellénique oriental, l'arc hellénique occidental,
l'arc cyprien, la marge continentale égyptienne. Les arcs helléniques de l'Est et de l'Ouest
sont considérés comme les zones tectoniques les plus actives à longue distance et une source
majeure de tsunamis qui peuvent frapper les côtes égyptiennes et les régions
méditerranéennes adjacentes. Le catalogue historique de sismicité rapporte trois événements
sismiques significatifs de la zone de subduction hellénique avec des tsunamis majeurs qui
ont affecté la côte méditerranéenne de l'Egypte:
1) Le tremblement de terre et l'événement tsunamigène du 21 juillet 365 (Mw 8,3 -
8,5; Stiros et Drakos, 2006; Shaw et al., 2008),
2) Le tremblement de terre et l'événement tsunamigène du 8 août 1303 (Mw 7,8 -
8,0) (Abu El Fida, 1329)
3) Tremblement de terre et tsunamigène du 24 juin 1870 (ML 7 -7.5) (Ben
Menahem, 1979). Les trois événements ont causé de grands dégâts sur la côte égyptienne et
ont particulièrement affecté la ville d'Alexandrie avec des inondations côtières et des
inondations. l'eau dans le nouveau port d'Alexandrie a éclaboussé sur le quai (Ambraseys
1961).
Les deux autres zones des sources de tsunamis moins actives sont l'arc chypriote et
la marge continentale égyptienne. La magnitude la plus élevée rapportée dans les catalogues
de tremblements de terre pour Chypre est de 7,5 et se réfère au séisme du 11 mai 1222, AD.
Ce tremblement de terre a été suivi par de faibles impacts de tsunami le long de la zone
côtière égypto-méditerranéenne Ambraseys (1995). Les séismes les plus importants se sont
produits dans la marge continentale égyptienne, par exemple le tremblement de terre
d'Alexandrie en mer, le 6 septembre, le 6 septembre 1955 (Hussein et al., 2005). Il est situé
dans le cône sédimentaire du Nil qui présente un potentiel de glissements de terrain tsunamis
(Garziglia et al., 2008).
Trois travaux de terrain ont été réalisés en utilisant des tranchées et des carottages
sur les sites de Kefr Saber et El Alamein en juin 2014, août 2015 et octobre 2015 dans la
côte nord de l'Egypte. Le but de ce travail de terrain était de 1) étudier la géologie et la
géomorphologie de la côte nord de l'Egypte. 2) Etudier l'enchaînement successif de la
stratigraphie dans les sites sélectionnés d'EL Alamein et de Kefr Sabre et 3) caractériser
l'âge des couches possibles de tsunami en fonction de la chronologie des datations au
carbone et des signatures des tsunamis.
xxx
Pour la sélection du site paléotsunami,, les critères géomorphologiques et
topographiques ont été pris en compte ainsi que l'accessibilité afin d'éviter l'urbanisation et
le remodelage artificiel des sols. Les critères géomorphologiques sont:
Le premier est la présence de gros rochers observés le long de la côte dans le nord de
l'Egypte dans des localités telles que Ras El Hekma -Ras ELAlam Rum -Mersa Matrouh -
Est Mersa Matrouh (Kefr Saber) avec une riche teneur en fossiles de Dendropoma. La
datation calibrée de l'échantillon de Dendropome à Kefr Saber est 940-1446 AD qui peut
être corrélée avec une vague forte et élevée (> 5m) à la côte de Kefr Sabre probablement
durant ce tsunami du 8 août 1303. Ce résultat coïncide avec celui de Shah-Hosseini et al.,
(2016) le long du même littoral.
Les deuxièmes critères géomorphologiques sont la présence de dunes côtières le long
de la côte égyptienne. Elles sont composées de sables carbonatés blancs et blancs, délavés,
provenant de la dégradation des dorsales côtières oolithiques de 2 à 20 mètres de hauteur.
Derrière ces dunes de sable, les troisièmes critères de géomorphologie sont les lagunes ou
marais salés que l'on trouve entre des crêtes disséquées avec parfois une élévation inférieure
au niveau de la mer à l'ouest de Marsa Matrouh.
Cinq tranchées ont été réalisées à Kefr Saber ~ 32 km à l'ouest de Marsa-Matruh. 12
sondages carottés ont été réalisées dans le deuxième site sélectionné d'El Alamein. Les
sondages carottés ont été réalisés en utilisant un instrument de forage cobra. La taille des
tranchées était ~ 2 x 1 mètre avec ~ 1.5-m-profondeur et la profondeur maximale des
noyaux est ~ 2.6 m.
Les tranchées sont enregistrées et photographiées avec une description détaillée et un
échantillonnage pendant les travaux sur le terrain à Kefr Saber. Alors que les carottes
réalisées sur le site d'ElAlamein étaient divisées en deux dans le laboratoire NRIAG avec
Fisher Wire. Un pour les archives et l'autre pour l'analyse de la sédimentation et du contenu.
Le noyau étudié comprend la collecte d'échantillons pour la datation, la photographie, les
descriptions stratigraphiques détaillées, le balayage des rayons X, l'analyse géochimique et
la susceptibilité magnétique. L'objectif principal est d'identifier les dépôts de Paleotsunami
dans les grumes stratigraphiques en fonction des signatures des tsunamis.
Des radiographies radiographiques ont été effectuées sur des carottes en utilisant un
laboratoire de radiographie médicale avant d'être ouvertes pour identifier les détails des
sédiments et des microfossiles. Des rayons X très intensifs ont été utilisés pour pénétrer dans
les sédiments afin de montrer les détails dans les sédiments. Trois radiographies de 40 cm de
long ont été prises pour chaque noyau de 1 m de long avec un chevauchement d'au moins 5
cm.
xxxi
Les carottes et les tranchées ont été décrites en fonction de leur longueur, de leur
couleur, de leur texture (granulométrie, tri), des structures sédimentaires (naturelles ou dues
à des carottages), du type de contact sédimentaire (acéré ou dégradé). Les carottes et les
tranchées ont ensuite été photographiées à l'aide d'un reflex numérique à reflex numérique
(Appareil photo reflex numérique à objectif unique) en sections de 25 cm de long, avec un
chevauchement d'au moins 2 cm. Ces images ont été assemblées pour reconstruire une seule
image pour chaque section de base.
La susceptibilité magnétique a été mesurée avec des intervalles de 3 cm le long des
carottes en utilisant un système Bartington MS-2. Des échantillons d'une dimension de 2 cm
de long ont été collectés tous les 15 cm pour la minéralogie en vrac, la taille des grains,
l'analyse organique et inorganique totale qui a été réalisée au laboratoire d'un institut central
de recherche métallurgique (CMRDI) à Helwan.
La datation au radiocarbone des échantillons a été réalisée dans trois laboratoires
(laboratoire de Poznan - Pologne, CIRAM à Bordeaux, France et Beta Analytical
Laboratory, USA) pour assurer des résultats cohérents et de haute qualité. Les échantillons
prélevés étaient constitués de charbon de bois, d'os, de gastéropodes, de coquilles et de
matières organiques. Les résultats de datation au radiocarbone du charbon et de la matière
organique ont été étalonnés en utilisant une courbe d'étalonnage récente (Reimer et al.,
2013) et le logiciel Oxcal pour la fonction de densité de probabilité de chaque âge
d'échantillon avec incertitude 2ı (Bronk-Ramsay, 2009); de plus, les gastéropodes et les
coquilles ont été corrigés par rapport aux effets du réservoir.
Deux sections composites ont été construites pour résumer les stratigraphes et les
couches de tsunami reconnues sur le site de Kefr Sabre et EL Alamein avec la chronologie
et la simulation des événements historiques paléotsunamis 1600 avant J.-C, 21 juillet 365, 8
août 1303 et un tsunami plus récent le 24 juin 1870 Les troncs stratigraphiques des tranchées
de Kefr Saber montrent principalement une couche de sable et de gravier mélangés à des
tsunamis, et des coquilles brisées à une profondeur d'environ 35 cm et une épaisseur de 20
cm comparable aux dépôts de tsunami du 21 juillet 365. Les carottes d' El Alamein montrent
quatre couches principales caractérisées par un sable fin et grossier mélangé à des fragments
de coquilles brisées qui indiquent la présence de dépôts sédimentaires à haute énergie dans
l'environnement du lagon côtier.
Les diagraphies stratigraphiques dans les carottes montrent quatre couches
principales de tsunami; A) La première couche a ~ 7.5 cm d'épaisseur à ~ 19 cm de
profondeur et est faite de dépôts de sable blanc mal triés avec des gastéropodes brisés et des
fossiles de lamellibranches. La valeur élevée de la matière organique et le pic élevé de
xxxii
susceptibilité magnétique reflètent une teneur riche en carbonates et en quartz. B) La
deuxième couche est d'environ 13 cm d'épaisseur à 50 cm de profondeur, caractérisée par
des dépôts sableux blancs intercalés de sable brun grossier avec stratification horizontale, de
mauvais sédiments de triage, riches en matière organique totale et un fort pic de
susceptibilité magnétique. C) La troisième couche ~ 18 cm d'épaisseur à 89 cm de
profondeur est faite de sable jaune mélangé avec des intercalations de sable blanc, avec des
laminations au fond des dépôts, directions gastropodes verticales et horizontales reflètent le
courant de haute vague, fragments de coquilles brisées, riches dans la matière organique
totale et la pyrite montrant un pic élevé de susceptibilité magnétique. D) La quatrième
couche de tsunami est à 151 cm de profondeur avec une épaisseur de 19 cm. Il est
caractérisé par du sable jaune pâle, moyen à fin, avec des fragments de coquilles brisés et un
tri extrêmement pauvre, avec un haut pic de susceptibilité magnétique, et un haut pic de
matière organique > 5.5% en poids et une quantité élevée de gypse.
Le chapitre V, je prends comme exemple la récente modélisation significative des
tsunamis telle que le tsunami massif généré par le tremblement de terre majeur de Tohoku
de Mw 9.0 le 11 mars 2011, avec un hauteur maximale des vagues atteignant 19.5 m dans la
plaine de Sendai (Mori et al., 2011). Dans mon travail, deux scénarios simples sont
construits en utilisant la mise à jour du logiciel Mirone version 2.7.0 modifiée le 22 octobre
2016 (Luis, 2007) en utilisant les données des dépôts de tsunami du 21 juillet 365 et du 8
août 1303. Les deux pires scénarios simples avec des sources de tsunami actives à haute
possibilité ont été construits en créant la vague initiale de ruptures de failles calculées pour
les arcs helléniques occidentaux et helléniques orientaux. La hauteur des vagues et les temps
de parcours ont été calculés dans ces deux scénarios en fonction de l'historique des
localisations sources, par exemple le 21 juillet 365 (Stiros, 2010) et le 8 août 1303 (Abu
Fida, 1329; Guidoboni et Comastri, 2005). en testant les ruptures de failles calculées par
Stiros (2010) et Pagnoni et al. (2015).
Les amplitudes des tremblements de terre ont été estimées égales ou supérieures à
la magnitude la plus élevée enregistrée à l'époque historique (tableau 4). Les données de
bathymétrie utilisées sont la grille de 30 secondes d'arc à partir des données GEBCO
disponibles en ligne, et ceci en l'absence de la résolution plus détaillée (1 seconde d'arc ou
moins) des données de bathymétrie côtière dans ma zone d'étude.
Les incertitudes sont calculées pour la géométrie de la faille (longueur, largeur et
glissement) utilisée dans les arcs helléniques est et ouest en comparaison avec les études
précédentes. De plus, les incertitudes sont calculées en hauteur des vagues (m) selon les 5
xxxiii
scénarios testés résultant en une hauteur de vague de ± 5 m dans le cas du scénario de l'est et
de ± 1.5 m dans le scénario de l'ouest de l'arc hellénique
Dans le scénario hellénique oriental, la propagation d'onde calculée est effectuée
toutes les 0, 33, 50, 66, 80 minutes. Après 30 minutes, la vague initiale arrive et après 50
minutes, la vague maximale atteint 7 à 10 mètres dans les sites de Kefr Saber et El Alamein.
Dans le scénario Hellénique de l'Ouest, la propagation de l'onde de tsunami est calculée à 0,
33, 66, 100, 150 minutes. La hauteur des vagues atteint 4-10 m à l'heure d'arrivée 33
minutes sur la côte libyenne. La vague arrive à la côte égyptienne après 66 minutes avec une
hauteur de vague légèrement inférieure à celle de la côte libyenne. La hauteur de la vague
arrive à la côte égyptienne avec 0.8 ± 1.7 m à Kefr Saber et avec une hauteur de vague de
0,4 à 0,8 m à El Alamein après 100 minutes. Les vagues du tsunami couvrent toute la côte
égyptienne après 150 minutes du scénario de l'ouest de l'arc hellénique.
Mes résultats sont comparés avec des études antérieures de (Hamouda, 2006) pour la
côte égyptienne ; (Hassan, 2013, Pagnoni et al., 2015) dans le cas du scénario de l'arc
hellénique oriental et pour l'arc hellénique occidental (Hamouda, 2009, Shaw et al., 2008, et
Pagnoni et al., 2015). Mes résultats sont en accord avec la modélisation de (Hassan, 2013)
pour la hauteur des vagues à Salloum, Alexandrie, Damiette en cas de scénario oriental et
semblent être différentes du résultat de (Hamouda, 2005 et Pagnoni et al., 2015) . Mes
résultats concordent bien avec la taille de l'onde de tsunami déduite du modèle de Shaw et
al., (2008) hauteur des vagues à Alexandrie dans le cas du scénario de l'ouest de
l'Hellénisme.
Chapitre (VI), ce chapitre est le dernier concluant qui montre les résultats finaux
obtenus par la sismicité, les mécanismes focaux, l'inversion de contrainte calculée, les
données géodésiques pour identifier la déformation actuelle et le régime tectonique de stress
principal dans le nord de l'Egypte et sud-est méditerranéen. Le résultat principal est que
toute l'Egypte du nord est considérée comme faisant partie du régime d'extension sauf la
marge continentale égyptienne. Sur la base de l'étude du paléotsunami, les principales
sources sismiques tsunamigènes avec des potentiels Mw> 8 dans la région de la
Méditerranée orientale (arc hellénique oriental et occidental) sont prises en compte. Ces arcs
ont été considérés comme la zone de subduction la plus dangereuse et les segments sources
des futurs tsunamis possibles dans cette région pour le nord de l'Egypte. Les résultats
obtenus lors du creusement à Kefr Saber sont corrélés au 21 juillet 365 à Kefr Saber, tandis
que les quatre couches de tsunami dans les carottes du site d'El Alamein sont corrélées avec
les événements historiques du tsunami de 1600 avant J.-C , 21 juillet 365, 8 août 1303, 24
Juin 1870. Ce chapitre se termine par la perspective de la sismotectonique de l'Égypte, y
xxxiv
compris l'étude de la faille quaternaire active d'El Alamein et d'autres recherches sur les
dépôts paléotsunamis.
Mes recommandations dans le chapitre VI sont 1) l'heure d'arrivée minimum pour
que les vagues du tsunami arrivent à la côte égyptienne étant 30 minutes dans le cas de l'arc
hellénique oriental et 66 minutes dans l'arc hellénique occidental cela laisse assez de temps
pour prendre mesures de protection et d'envoyer des alarmes à la défense civile et la côte
égyptienne et sauver des vies. J'ai construit un tableau pour suggérer des messages d'alerte
possibles en fonction des données historiques, des données de simulation en fonction des
grandeurs de séismes multisystémiques à fournir aux décideurs en cas de risque de tsunami.
Les messages d'alerte nécessitent une coopération étroite avec les centres d'études sur les
tsunamis turcs et grecs et sont classés en fonction de l'échelle locale, régionale et du bassin.
Par exemple, selon (Salamon et al., 2010), les messages peuvent être liés à des distances
ORFDOHVNPRXUpJLRQDOHV-NPRXjO
pFKHOOHGXEDVVLQNP'DQVOH
cas des zones côtières égyptiennes, nous considérons que l'arc hellénique oriental (EHA) et
l'arc hellénique occidental (WHA) sont le message régional de 100-400 km.
2) L'ensemble de la zone hellénique de subduction représente un risque sérieux de
tsunami pour la Méditerranée orientale et comme preuve des dépôts de tsunami analysés
dans cette étude. L'activation probable de l'arc hellénique ou même de l'arc cyprien avec un
séisme majeur Mw> 8 va générer un fort tsunami sur la côte égyptienne. Par conséquent, la
première étape pour la protection civile est la préparation du système d'alerte précoce et le
plan d'évacuation pour un probable probable tsunami sur les côtes égyptiennes.
Mes perspectives sont suggérées pour les études sismotectoniques et paléontunami
comme suit:
Premièrement, il n'a pas été possible d'effectuer des études de terrain détaillées sur
les zones sismiques actives et les failles actives du Quaternaire. Cependant, des failles dans
la zone du Caire-Suez et des failles d'EL Alamein ont été réalisées lors des premières
investigations en octobre 2015 et des reconnaissances ont été effectuées. Il n'y a jamais de
problème pour effectuer des mesures de champs détaillées pour la faille quaternaire active
d'El Alamein pour la perspective future.
Deuxièmement pour l'étude paléontunami,
a) Des investigations sur le terrain sont prévues sur le site de la ville de Thonis
Heracleion, ancienne cité historique égyptienne située dans l'embouchure canopique du Nil,
à 32 km au nord-est de la côte d'Alexandrie. Cette ville aurait été inondée apparemment à la
suite d'un tsunami majeur
xxxv
b) Compléter le carottage et les investigations précédentes dans d'autres sites situés
de Kefr Sabr à Salloum pour déterminer une éventuelle inondation du tsunami historique à
l'intérieur des terres le long de la côte nord de l'Egypte.
c) Créer un scénario potentiellement pire pour l'heure d'arrivée et la hauteur des
vagues du tsunami pour les projets stratégiques construits sur la côte égyptienne tels que la
ville de New El Alamein et la centrale nucléaire égyptienne.
xxxvi
xxxvii
ΐγ΍ϭήϠϟΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ΕϼΠδϟ΍ϭϰϨϳϮΘϜΘϟ΍ρΎθϨϟ΍ϦϋΔγ΍έΩ
ήμϣϝΎϤηϰϓΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍

ϰΑήόϟ΍κΨϠϤϟ΍
Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ϑ΍Ϊϫ΃ϻϭ΃
ϰϓ ΔτθϨϟ΍ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ ΪϳΪΤΗ ϢΗ Ϊϗϭ ήμϣ ϝΎϤηϭ ςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ ϕήη ϲϓ ΔτθϨϟ΍ ΔϴϧϮΘϜΘϟ΍ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ Δγ΍έΩ
ΖϣΪΨΘγ΍ ΪϗϭΎΑήϏ ϡϮϠδϟΎΑ˯ΎϬΘϧ΍ ϭϯήμϤϟ΍ϯέΎϘϟ΍ϢϴϠϗϻ΍ ΔϓΎΣϰϟ ΍ ήϤΣϻ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ ϝΎϤηΔϘτϨϣ ϦϣήμϣϝΎϤη
ϭΎϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍Δγ΍έΩϢΗΪϗϭήμϣϝΎϤηϰϓΔτθϧϦϛΎϣ΃ΔΘγΪϳΪΤΗϰϓΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ϭΔϠΠδϤϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΰϟΰϟ΍ρΎθϨϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϴΑ
ϡΎόϟ΍ϩΎΠΗ΍ΏΎδΣϰϟΎΘϟΎΑ ϭϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϹ΍ΕϼϣΎόϣΏΎδΣϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑΓέΆΒϟ΍ΔϴϜϴϧΎϜϴϣϝϮϠΣϭϰϟ΍ΰϟΰϟ΍ρΎθϨϟ΍
ήμϣϝΎϤηϭςγϮΘϤϟ΍ήΤΒϟ΍ϕήηϖρΎϨϣϰϓΩΎϬΟϺϟ
ϲϓΎϤϫέΎϴΘΧ΍ϢΗϦϳάϠϟ΍ϦϴόϗϮϤϟ΍ϲϓ έΎΑϻ΍ϭϕΩΎϨΨϟ΍ΔϴΠϬϨϣϡ΍ΪΨΘγΎΑ ϰϣΎϧϮδΘϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭέϦϋΔΠΗΎϨϟ΍ΕΎϘΒτϟ΍Δγ΍έΩ
ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭέϞδϠδΗςΑέϰϠϋΔϘϳήτϟ΍ϩάϫΪϋΎδΗϑϮγϭήΑΎλήϔϛϭϦϴϤϠόϟ΍ΔϘτϨϣϰϓΔϴϠϘΤϟ΍Δγ΍έΪϟ΍
ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ΕΎΟϮϟΎΘϜϟ΍ϲϓΎϘΑΎγΓΩΪΤϤϟ΍ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍Ι΍ΪΣϻ΍ϊϣ
ϰϓ ΔλΎΧ ϭ ϱήμϤϟ΍ ϞΣΎδϟ΍ ϰϟ· ΎϬϟϮλϭ Ζϗϭϭ Ν΍Ϯϣϻ΍ ΕΎϋΎϔΗέϹ ϰμϗϻ΍ ΪΤϟ΍ ΪϳΪΤΘϟ ΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍ Δγ΍έΩ
ΔϤΟΎϨϟ΍ΓέϮτΨϟ΍ΪϳΪΤΗϰϓΪϋΎδϳΪϗΎϤϣΎϬΑΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭήϟ΍ΪϳΪΤΗϢΗϰΘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϠϟΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍
ϞΒϘΘδϤϟ΍ϰϓΎϬΛϭΪΣΙϭΪΣΔϟΎΣϰϓΎϬϟΩ΍ΪόΘγϻ΍ΔϴϔϴϛϭϯήμϤϟ΍˯ϰρΎθϟ΍ϰϠϋΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ϚϠΗϰϠϋ
Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ΔϣΪϘϣϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻ΄ΑΏ΍ϮΑ΃ΔδϤΧϰϠϋΔγ΍έΪϟ΍ΖϠϤΘη΃Ϊϗϭ
ϝϭϷ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϥΎϜϣϰϓΎϫάϴϔϨΗϮΟήϤϟ΍ΔϴγΎϴγϷ΍ ϑ΍Ϊϫϻ΍ ϭΔγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϞϤϋϞΣ΍ήϣ ΡήθΗ ΚϴΣΔϣΪϘϤϟ΍ϝϭΎϨΘϳϭ
ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭέΕΎγ΍έΩϭΔτθϨϟ΍ΔϴϧϮΘϜΘϟ΍ΔϛήΤϟ΍ϝΎΠϣϰϓΔϣΪΨΘδϤϟ΍ΕΎγ΍έΪϟ΍ϦϋΔϣΪϘϣϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑ
ΐγ΍ϭέϦϣήϴΜϜϟ΍ϰϠϋϑήόΘϟ΍ϰϓ ήϴΒϛϞϜθΑΖϤϫΎγΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍Δγ΍έΩϥ΍ϭΔλΎΧΎϴϤϴϠϗ΃ϭΎϴϟϭΩ
ϢϟΎόϟ΍ϝϮΣϦϴϨδϟ΍ϑϻ΍ϝϼΧϰϓΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍
ϝΎϤθϟ΍ΰϴϤΘϳΚϴΣϯήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟΎΑϡΎϘΗ ΎϬϧ΍ΎλϮμΧϭΔγ΍έΪϟ΍ΔϴϤϫ΍ϰϠϋΎπϳ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍΍άϫϯϮΘΤϳΎϤϛ
ϞϤϋΎϬϴϠϋ ΪϤΘόϳϰΘϟ΍ΕΎγΎϴγϷ΍ϒλϭϢΗΪϗϭϞΣΎδϟ΍ϝϮρϰϠϋΔϳϮϴΤϟ΍ϭΔϴΠΗ΍ήΘγϻ΍ϊϳέΎθϤϟ΍ϦϣΩΪϋ ΔϣΎϗΈΑ
ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ϰγϮϘϟ΍ϦϣϯήμϤϟ΍˯ϰρΎθϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΔΟϮϤϟ΍ϝϮλϭϦϣίϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑΝ΍Ϯϣϻ΍ωΎϔΗέ΍ϝϮλϭήϳΪϘΗϭϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍
ϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ϭήΑΎλήϔϛϰϓΔϴϟΎϤθϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭήϟ΍ΪΟ΍ϮΘϟ΍έΪμϤϟ΍ϥϼΜϤϳϢϬϧϹϰΑήϐϟ΍ϭϰϗήθϟ΍
ϰϧΎΜϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
ϰϟϭϻ΍ϪϠΣήϤϟ΍ϞΣ΍ήϣΔΛϼΛϰϠϋΖϤδϗΪϗϭΔγ΍έΪϟ΍ϰϓΔϣΪΨΘδϤϟ΍ϞϤόϟ΍ϕήρϭΔϴΠϬϨϣϰϧΎΜϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍ϝϭΎϨΘϳ
ϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϹΕΎϫΎΠΗϻ΍ΏΎδΣϭϪϴϟίϻΰϟ΍ΓέΆΒϟ΍ΔϴϜϴϧΎϜϴϣΔγ΍έΩϖϳήρϦϋϚϟΫϭΔϴϧϮΘϜΗϮϣΰϴδϟ΍Δγ΍έΪΑΖϤΘϫ΍
ˬıˬıΔόΑέϻ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ΕϼϣΎόϣϪΑΎδΣ ϰϓΔϣΪΨΘδϤϟ΍ΔϘϳήτϟ΍ϭΔϔϳήόΗϭϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍Δγ΍έΩϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑ
ϞϣΎόϣΏΎδΣϰϓDelveaux (2003ΞϣΎϧήΑϡΪΨΘγ΍ϢΗΚϴΣϭ 5 ı- ııO- ı ΩΎϬΟϹ΍ΔΒδϧϭı
ϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ΔϛήΣϭωϮϧΪϳΪΤΗϭϡΎόϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϷ΍
xxxviii
Δϴδϴ΋ήϟ΍ ήλΎϨόϟ΍ Ϧϣϭ ˬ ΔԩήΤΒϟ΍ ϥΎϓϮτϠϟ΍ ΐγ΍ϭήϟ΍ ΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ Δγ΍έΩ ΔϴΠϬϨϤΑ ϖϠόΘΘϓ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ΔϠΣήϤϟ΍ Ύϣ΃
ΔϴϠΑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϨϴδϟ΍ ΔόηϷΎΑ ΢δϤϟ΍ ΕΎγΎϴϗ ϞϤθΗϭ ˬΎϴϟϭΩ ΎϬϴϠϋ ϑέΎόΘϣ ΎϬϟ ΕΎϤμΑ ϲϫ ϲϣΎϧϮδΗ ΐγ΍ϭέ ΪϳΪΤΘϟ
ΕϼϴϠΤΗϞϤϋϢΗΎϤϛˬΎϬΑΔλΎΨϟ΍ΔΌϴΒϟ΍ϰϠϋϭΎϬϴϠϋϑήόΘϟ΍ϭΓήϴΒϜϟ΍ΕΎϳήϔΤϟ΍ϦϋϒθϜϠϟΕΎϨϴόϟ΍άΧ΃ϭΔϴδϴρΎϨϐϤϟ΍
ϰϓϥΩΎόϤϟ΍ϩάϫ ΔΒδϨΑΎδΣϰϟ΍ ΔϓΎοϻΎΑϥΩΎόϤϟ΍ϰϠϋϑήόΘϟϚϟΫϭXRD)ΔϴϨϴδϟ΍Δόηϻ΍ ΩϮϴΤϟ΍ ϞϤθΗϭΔϴ΋ΎϴϤϛ
ϢΠΣ ϞϴϠΤΗϭ ϯϮπϋ ήϴϐϟ΍ ϭ ϯϮπόϟ΍ ϥϮΑήϜϟ΍ ΔϴϤϜϟ ΔϴϋϮϨϟ΍ ΔΒδϨϟ΍ Ύπϳ΍ ϭ ΎϫέΪμϣ ϰϠϋ ϑήόΘϟ΍ ϭ ΐγ΍ϭήϟ΍
ΪϳΪΤΗ ΪόΑ ϭ ˬFolk (1968) ΕϻΩΎόϤϟ ΎϘϓϭ ΔΑϮδΤϤϟ΍ίήϔϟ΍ΔΟέΩϭϰΒϴΒΤϟ΍ϢΠΤϟ΍ ΚϴΣϦϣ ΐγ΍ϭήϠϟ ΕΎΌϳΰΠϟ΍
ΎϬΘϧέΎϘϣ ϭ ΕΎϘΒτϟ΍ ϩάϫ ήϤϋ ϰϠϋ ϑήόΘϠϟ ϊθϤϟ΍ ϥϮΑήϜϟ΍ ΕΎϨϴϋ ϞϴϠΤΗ ϢΗ ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϠϟ ΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ ΐγ΍ϭήϟ΍
ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ϊΟ΍ήϤϟ΍ϼϓΔϠΠδϤϟ΍ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟΎΑ
ϢΗΚϴΣΔΠϣάϤϨϟ΍ϩάϫ ϞϤϋΔϘϳήτΑϒϳήόΘϟ΍ϭΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ΔΟάϤϧϭΓΎϛΎΤϤΑΔΜϟΎΜϟ΍ΔϠΣήϤϟ΍ϖϠόΘΗϭ
ωΎϔΗέ΍ϊϗϮΗΚϴΣϦϣΐδϧϻ΍ έΎϴΘΧ΍ϭϰϗήθϟ΍ ϭϰΑήϐϟ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϠϟ΍ ΡϮϠϟ΍ ϕήηΔϘτϨϣ ϦϣϞϜϟ ΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴγ ϞϤϋ
ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ΕΎΟϮΘϟΎϜϟ΍ϖϳήρϦϋΕΎϧΎϓϮτϠϟέΪμϤϟ΍ϦϛΎϣ΃ϭΝ΍Ϯϣϻ΍
ΚϟΎΜϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ ΡϮϠϟ ΔτθϨϟ΍ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ ϭ ςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ ϕήη Ϧϣ ϞϜϟ ΔϣΎόϟ΍ ΎϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϠϟ Δγ΍έΩ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϝϭΎϨΘϳ
ΚϴΣϦϣΡϮϟϻ΍ϩάϫΓέϮτΧϭήμϣϝΎϤηΡέΎϘϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϰϟ΍ϻϮλϭϰλήΒϘϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑϰΑήϐϟ΍ϭϰϗήθϟ΍
ϦϣϞϛϰϓΎϴϟ΍ΰϟίΔτθϨϟ΍ϦϛΎϣϻ΍ΪϳΪΤΘϟϭήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤηϰϓΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ϦϛΎϣϻ΃ΪϳΪΤΗϭΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ήτΧ
ϰϟ΍ΩϼϴϤϟ΍ϞΒϗ ϦϣΔϠΠδϤϟ΍ϭΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ϝ΍ίϻΰϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϴΑϊϴϤΠΗϢΗϭϯήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟ΍ϭςγϮΘϤϟ΍ήΤΒϟ΍ϕήη
ΔϓΎΤϟ΍ ϰϟΎΘϟΎϛϰϫϭϝΎϤηϰϓΔϴϧϮΘϜΗέΩΎμϣΔΘγΪϳΪΤΘϤΗΎϤϛήμϣϝΎϤηϭςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ϕήηϲϓϡΎόϟ΍
βϳϮδϟ΍ΞϴϠΧ ˬϲϟΎϤθϟ΍βϳϮδϟ΍ΞϴϠΧˬβϳϮδϟ΍ΓήϫΎϘϟ΍ΔϘτϨϣ ˬέϮθϫΩΔϘτϨϣ ˬΔϳήμϤϟ΍ΔϳέΎϘϟ΍ΔϟΎϤθϟ΍
ϲϓ ΓέϮθϨϤϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϴΒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ Δϴϟ΍ΰϟ΍ΰϟ΍ ΔϳέΆΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϴΒϟ΍ ϊϴϤΠΗ Ύπϳ΍ ϢΗ ϭ ΔΒϘόϟ΍ ΞϴϠΧ ˬϲΑϮϨΠϟ΍
ΔϓΎΤϠϟ ϱϭΎδϳϭ΃ϦϣήΒϛ΃ϭήΘΨϳέαΎϴϘϤΑ ϦϣΓϮϘϟ΍Ε΍ΫΔϴϟ΍ΰϟΰϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϴΒϟ΍ΔλΎΧϭΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ΔϴϟϭΪϟΎΗΎΟϮϟΎΘϜϟ΍
ϢΗΪϗϭ (Tensor v.5, Delveaux 2010), ΞϣΎϧήΒϟ΍ϖϳήρϦϋϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ΕΎϫΎΠΗ΍ΏΎδΣϢΗΪϗϭΔϳέΎϘϟ΍
ϞΧ΍ΩΕΎϘΒτϠϟΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ΕΎϘΒτϠϟϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϹ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϧϥ·ϯήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟΎΑΔτθϨϟ΍ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ϲϓΩΎϬΟϻ΍ΕϼϣΎόϣϢϴϴϘΗ
ΞϴϠΧ ϲΑϮϨΠϟ΍ βϳϮδϟ΍ ΞϴϠΧ ϲϟΎϤθϟ΍βϳϮδϟ΍ΞϴϠΧβϳϮδϟ΍±ΓήϫΎϘϟ΍ΔϘτϨϣ έϮθϫΪϟ΍ ΔϘτϨϣΔϳήμϤϟ΍ϰο΍έϷ΍
ςϐοϩΎΠΗ·ήϬψΗΚϴΣϪϳέΎϘϟ΍ΔϓΎΤϟ΍˯ΎϨΜϨΘγΈΑΏήϏΏϮϨΟϕήηϝΎϤηϡΎόϟ΍ϩΎΠΗ·άΨΘϳΪηΩΎϬΟ΍ϡΎψϧϮϫϭΔΒϘόϟ΍
ΕΎϧΎϴΑνΎϔΨϧΈΑΰϴϤΘΗΔϴϗήθϟ΍ΔϳέΎϘϟ΍ΔϓΎΤϟ΍ϲϓϢϴτϠΒϟ΍ ϩΎΠΗ·ϭΡΎδϤΘϟ΍ϩΎΠΗ·ΎϤϨϴΑϰΑήϏΏϮϨΟ ±ϰϗήηϝΎϤηϰϓ
Ϧϣ Ϟϛ ϰϓ ΔϴτϏΎπΘΗ ΔϤϴϗ ϞΜϤΗ ΚϴΣ ΎϬΑ ΩΎϬΟϹ΍ ΔϤϗ ΔϓήόϤϟ ( ϝϭήΘΒϟ΍ ΕΎϛήη ΕΎγ΍έΪΑ ΔϧΎόΘγϹ΍ ϢΗ ΍άϟ ϝίϻΰϟ΍
ΡΎδϤΘϟ΍ϩΎΠΗ΍ϰΑήϐϟ΍ΏϮϨΠϟ΍ϰϗήθϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟ΍ϭϢϴτϠΑϩΎΠΗ΍ΏϮϨΟϝΎϤηΕΎϫΎΠΗϹ΍
ϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϹΎΑήμϣϝΎϤηϰϓϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ΕϼϣΎόϣϊϴϤΠϟΔόϤΠϣΔτϳήΧϞϤϋϢΗΏΎΒϟ΍΍άϫΔϳΎϬϧϰϓϭ
ΔΑϮδΤϤϟ΍ΔϤϴϘϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϹΎΑΎϴϤϟΎϋΏϮδΤϤϟ΍ϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ϦϣϭΔϴϜϴϧΎϜϴϤϟ΍ΓέΆΒϟ΍ϝϮϠΣϦϣςγϮΘϤϟ΍ήΤΒϟ΍ϕήη
GPSϦϣΔϛήΤϟ΍ΕΎϫΎΠΗ΍ϭΖγΎϴϗϦϣΎϴϤϟΎϋ
ϊΑ΍ήϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
ϭ βτδϏ΃ ϭ ϮϴϟϮϳ ϞΜϣΓήϴΒϜϟ΍ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍έΎΛϷΎμΨϠϣΏΎΒϟ΍΍άϫϡΪϘϳ
ήΤΒϟ΍ ϕήθϟ ΓέϭΎΠϤϟ΍ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ ϞΣ΍Ϯγ ϭ ϯήμϤϟ΍ ϰϟΎϤθϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ ϩάϫ έΎΛ΍ ϭ ϮϴϧϮϳ
Ambrasey (2009), ΔτγϮΑ ΎόϴϤΠΗ ϢΗ ΚϴΣ ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ ϖ΋ΎΛϮϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΕΎϣϮϠόϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ άΧ΃ ϢΗ ΚϴΣ ςγϮΘϤϟ΍
ΔΑήΗέΎΑ΃ϞϤϋϰϟ΍Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ϦϛΎϣ΃ΪϳΪΤΘΑ΍˯ΪΑΔԩϧ΍ΪϴϣΔϴϠϘΣΕ΍έΎϳίΙϼΛΩΪϋϞϤϋϢΗ Ϊϗϭ Guidoboni (2009),
xxxix
ϰϠϋ ΍˯ΎϨΑ ϦϛΎϣϻ΍ έΎϴΘΧ΍ ϢΗ Ϊϗ ϭ ϯήμϤϟ΍ ϝΎϤθϟ΍ ϰϓ ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ ΐγ΍ϭέ Δγ΍έΪϟ ϕΩΎϨΧ ήϔΣ ϭ ΔϳέΎΒΘΧ ΁
ϥΎϜϤϟ΍ΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΟϭΔϴΟϮϠϓέϮϤϴΟ
Ϧϣ ϰϟΎϤθϟ΍ ˯ΰΠϟ΍ ήΒΘόϳϭ ˬςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ξϴΑϷ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ ϞΣΎγ Ϧϣ ϲΑήϐϟ΍ ϲϟΎϤθϟ΍ ˯ΰΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ϥ΍έΎΘΨϤϟ΍ ϥΎόϗϮϤϟ΍ ϊϘϳϭ
ΎϜϳέΎϣήϤϟ΍ΔΒπϬϟϱήϴΠϟ΍ήΠΤϟ΍ϦϣΔΒπϫϞϜθΗϲΘϟ΍ϦϴγϮϳΎϤϟ΍ήμϋϦϣΔϘΒτΑΎγΎγ΃ϰτϐϤϟ΍ϭΔϴΑήϐϟ΍˯΍ήΤμϟ΍
ϲϓ ςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ξϴΑϷ΍ ήΤΒϟ΍ ϞΣΎγϭ Ώήϐϟ΍ ϲϓ ϡϮϠδϟ΍ ϰϟ· ϕήθϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎΘϟΪϟ΍ϭ ϞϴϨϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ Ϧϣ ϲΑήϐϟ΍ ΐϧΎΠϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪΘϤϳ
ϦϴϤϠόϟ΍ϖϟΎϓϩΎΠΗ΍ϭΏήϏϕήηϰϧϮΘϜΘϟ΍ϩΎΠΗ΄ΒϣΎϋϞϜθΑΔϘτϨϤϟ΍ϩάϫΕήΛ΄ΗϭϲϓΓϮϴγϭ ΓέΎτϘϟ΍ξϔΨϨϣϰϟ·ϝΎϤθϟ΍
ΎϤϛ ΏϮϨΟ±ϝΎϤηϩΎΠΗϹ΍ ϞϜηάΧ΄ΗΔϳήΨλϞΘϛΕΎόϤΠΘΑΔϳήμϤϟ΍ϞΣ΍Ϯδϟ΍ΰϴϤΘΗϭ ϕήηΏϮϨΟ ΏήϏ ϝΎϤη
ϒϠΧΕΎόϘϨΘδϤϟ΍ξόΑΩϮΟϭϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϹΎΑ ϰμϗ΃ΪΤϛ΍ήΘϣ 20 ϰϟ· 5 ϦϣΕϭΎϔΘΗϲΘϟ΍ΔϴϠϣήϟ΍ϥΎΒΜϜϟΎΑϊϗϮϤϟ΍ΰϴϤΘϳ
ΔϴϠϣήϟ΍ϥΎΒΜϜϟ΍
ϰϓϥϮϠϟ΍˯ΎπϴΑΔϘΒρΩϮΟϭϰϟ΍ϊθϤϟ΍ϥϮΑήϜϟΎΑΦϳέΎΘϟ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϧϭΔϳέΎΒΘΧϻ΍ΔΑήΘϟ΍έΎΑ΃ϭήϔΤϟ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϧκΨϠΘΗϭ
Ε΍ΫΔϘΒτϟ΍ϩάϫΖϧέϮϗΪϗϭΓήδϜΘϤϟ΍ΕΎΑήϔΤϠϟϒϴΜϛΩϮΟϮΑΰΘϤΘΗϭΡϭήτϣϰγήϣΔϨϳΪϣΏήϏήΑΎλήϔϛΔϔτϨϣ
ΎϬΘϧέΎϘϣϢΗΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟΓΰϴϤϣΕΎϘΒρ ϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ϊϗϮϣϰϓήϬψϳΎϤϨϴΑϮϴϟϮϳ ϯήΤΒϟ΍ϥΎϓϮτϟΎΑϢγ ϚϤδϟ΍
ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϠϟ ΎϬϧ΍ ΪΟϭ Ϊϗ ϭ ϊθϤϟ΍ ϥϮΑήϜϟ΍ ϭΔϴϨϴδϟ΍ Δόηϻ΍ ϭ ΔϴδρΎϨϐϤϟ΍ ΔϴϠΑΎϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ ήϛάϟ΍ ΔϘΑΎδϟ΍ ϞϴϠΤΘϟΎΑ
.ϮϴϧϮϳ΍ήΧΆϣϭβτδϏ΃ˬϮϴϟϮϳˬϲϨϳέϮΘϧΎγΩϼϴϤϟ΍ϞΒϗΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍

βϣΎΨϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
ϥΎϓϮρϞΜϣϢϟΎόϟ΍ϲϓΚϳΪΤϟ΍Ϧϣΰϟ΍ϰϓΖΛΪΣϰΘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ϦϣΔϠΜϣϻ΍ξόΑβϣΎΨϟ΍ ΏΎΒϟ΍ϡΪϘϳ
ΖϗϮϟ΍ϰϓ αέΎϣ ϲϓϥΎΑΎϴϟ΍ϕήηϝ΍ΰϟί ϦϣΞΗΎϨϟ΍ Ϟ΋ΎϬϟ΍ϯήΤΒϟ΍ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍΍άϫήΒΘόϳϭ)ϥΎΑΎϴϟ΍
ϱ΍ΪϨϴγϞϬγϲϓ΍ήΘϣϰϟ·ΔΟϮϤϠϟωΎϔΗέ΍ϰμϗ΃έΪϗΪϗϭϪΗϮϗΖϧΎϛΚϴΣϢΠΤϟ΍ΚϴΣϦϣήΒϛϷ΍Ϯϫ
ϥΎΑΎϴϟ΍ϕήθϟΉΩΎϬϟ΍ςϴΤϤϟ΍ϞΣΎγϦϣϦϳήΘϣϮϠϴϛΩ΍ΪΘϣ΍ϰϠϋΕήΛ΃ϭ
ϭϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ϭήΑΎλήϔϛΔϘτϨϣϰϓΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭήϠϟΕΎϘΒρΩϮΟϭϰϠϋ΍ΪϤΘϋ΍ϮϳέΎϨϴγ ϞϤϋϢΗΪϗϭ
ΔΟάϤϧϞϤϋϝϼΧϦϣΝ΍Ϯϣϻ΍ωΎϔΗέ΍έΪϗΪϗϭ(Luis 2007) ήΑϮΘϛ΃22ΚϳΪΤΗMirone (2.7)ΝΎϧήΑϡΪΨΘγ΍
ϯήμϤϟ΍˯ϰρΎθϟΎԩϟΈΝ΍ϮϣϹ΍ϝϮλϭϦϣίέΪϗΎϛϰΑήϐϟ΍ϭϰϗήθϟ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍έΪμϤϟ΍ϦϣϞϜϟ
ΔΟϮϤϟ΍ϝϮλϭϦϣίΏΎδΣϢΗΪϗϭΕ΍έΎΒΘΧ΍ΩΪϋϰϠϋ΍˯ΎϨΑΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍΃Ϯγ΃ΔΟάϤϨϟ΍ϩάϫ΢οϮΗϭ
ΪόΑϦϴϤϠόϟ΍ϭήΑΎλήϔϛϲϓήΘϣ ΔΟϮϤϠϟωΎϔΗέ΃ϰμϗ΃ϝϮλϭϊϣˬΔϘϴϗΩ ϮϫϭϱήμϤϟ΍ϞΣΎδϟ΍ϰϟϭϻ΍
ΖϗϭϦϣήΒϛ΃ΖϗϭήϬψϳϲΑήϐϟ΍ ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ ϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍ϥ΃ϦϴΣϲϓϲϗήθϟ΍ ϰϴϨϴϠϴϬϟ΍αϮϘϟ΍ϮϳέΎϨϴγΔϟΎΣϲϓΔϘϴϗΩ
ϲϓήΘϣϭήΑΎλήϔϛϲϓήΘϣΔΟϮϣωΎϔΗέ΍ϰμϗ΃ϊϣΔϘϴϗΩ Ϯϫϰϟϭϻ΍ΔΟϮϤϟ΍ϝϮλϭ
ϭΓΎϛΎΤϤϟ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϧ ήϬψΗϭΔϘΑΎδϟ΍ΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍ΕΎγ΍έΪΑΔϧέΎϘϣΓΎϛΎΤϤϟ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϧΔϧέΎϘϣΖϤΗΪϗϭΔϘϴϗΩ ΪόΑϦϴϤϠόϟ΍
Ξ΋ΎΘϧ ϦϜϟϭ ρΎϴϣΩϭ ΔϳέΪϨϜγϹ΍ϭ ϡϮϠδϟ΍ ϲϓ ΓέΪϘϤϟ΍ ΕΎΟϮϤϟ΍ ΕΎϋΎϔΗέϹ Hassan (2013) ϊϣ ϖϓ΍ϮΗ ϰϟ΍ ΔΟάϤϨϟ΍
ΔϟΎΣ ϲϓ ϲϗήθϟ΍ ϰϴϨϴϠϴϬϟ΍ αϮϗ ϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ ζϳήόϟ΍ϭ Ρϭήτϣ ϲϓ ΔΑϮδΤϤϟ΍ ΔΟϮϤϟ΍ ωΎϔΗέ΍ ήϬψΗ ΔϴϟΎΤϟ΍ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍
ϲϓϒϠΘΨϳϦϜϟϭΔϳέΪϨϜγϹ΍ϲϓ Shaw et al.(2008) ϊϣΓέΪϘϤϟ΍ΔΟϮϤϟ΍ωΎϔΗέ΍Ϧϣ΍ΰΘϳϲΑήϐϟ΍ϲϨϴϠϴϬϟ΍ϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍
. Ν΍ϮϣϷ΍ϝϮλϭΖϗϭ
Hamouda (2006) ΔϘΑΎδϟ΍ ΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍ ϊϣ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϬΑ Ύπϳ΍ ΓΎϛΎΤϤϟ΍ Ξ΋ΎΘϧ ΔϧέΎϘϣ ϢΗ Ϊϗ ϭ
ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ϞΣ΍ϮδϠϟϰϠϋHamouda(2009), Shaw et al., (2008), Hassan (2013), Pagnoni et al (2015)
xl
ϥΪϤϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΎϬϟϮλϭΕΎϗϭ΃ϭΔΟϮϤϟ΍ωΎϔΗέ΍ ΔϤϴϗϲϓϒϠΘΨΗΕΎϫϮϳέΎϨϴδϟ΍ϩάϫϥ΃ϦϴΒΗϭΔϴϨϴϠϴϬϟ΍αϮϗΏήϏϭϕήηϲϓ
ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ϞΣ΍ϮδϟΎΑΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍

αΩΎδϟ΍ΏΎΒϟ΍
ΏΎδΣ ϭΔϴϣΰϴδϟ΍ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϬϴϠϋ ϝϮμΤϟ΍ ϢΗ ϲΘϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϬϨϟ΍ Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍ αΩΎδϟ΍ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΕΎΟΎΘϨΘγ΍ ήϬψΗϭ
ΔΘδϟ΍ ϖρΎϨϤϟ΍ϰϓ ΙΩΎΤϟ΍ ϩϮθΘϟ΍ΪϳΪΤΘϟ ϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ ΩΎϬΟϻ΍ ϞϣΎόϣ ΪϳΪΤΗ ϰϟ΍ ΔϓΎοϻΎΑΓέΆΒϟ΍ ΔϴϜϴϧΎϜϴϣ Ϧϣ ΕΎϫΎΠΗϻ΍
ϪϠϛ ϱήμϤϟ΍ ϞΣΎδϟ΍ ήΒΘόϳϭ ςγϮΘϤϟ΍ ϕήηϭ ήμϣ ϝΎϤη ϲϓ ϰϣΰϴδϟ΍ ΩΎϬΟϺϟ ϲδϴ΋ήϟ΍ ϲϧϮΘϜΘϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ϭ ΔτθϨϟ΍
ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ΔϳέΎϘϟ΍ΔϓΎΤϟ΍˯ΎϨΜΘγΎΑϪϳΩΪϤΘϟ΍ϡΎψϨϟ΍Ϧϣ΍˯ΰΟ
ϰϓΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϠϟΔϴδ΋ήϟ΍ΕΎϘΒτϠϟΪΟ΍ϮΗϦϣϪϴϟΈϞλϮΘϟ΍ϢΗΎϣΞ΋ΎΘϧΏΎΒϟ΍΍άϫϰϓνήόΗΎϤϛ ϭ
ΓέϮτΨϠϟΔϴδϴ΋έ ϖρΎϨϤϛϰΑήϐϟ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ ϭϰϗήθϟ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ ΪϳΪΤΗϢΗΪϗϭ ϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ϭήΑΎλήϔϛ ΔϘτϨϣ
ϥΎϓϮρϪΒϘόϳϝ΍ΰϟΰϟΔϴΨϳέΎΗΪϫ΍ϮηϞϴΠδΗϢΗΪϗϭϰλήΒϘϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϢϬϴϠϳϭΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ϰϓΔΒΒδΘϤϟ΍Δϴϟΰϟΰϟ΍
ϞϴΠδΗϡΪϋϦϣϢϏήϟΎΑϰοέ΃ϕϻΰϧ΍ϞϤόϟΎϬΘϴϠΑΎϘϟϯέΎϘϟ΍ΔϓΎΤϟ΍ϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϹΎΑϮϳΎϣ ϰϓήϴϐλϯήΤΑ
ϰΑήϐϟ΍ϭϰϗήθϟ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϦϣϞϗ΃Δϴϟ΍ΰϟΰϟ΍ϢϬΗέϮτΧϥ΃ΚϴΣϭΎϬΑϢϳΪϗϱήΤΑϥΎϓϮτϟ
ΕΎϘΒρϊΑέ΍ΩϮΟϭϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ϭήΑΎλήϔϛϰϓΔϳέΎΒΘΧϻ΍έΎΑϻ΍ϭϕΩΎϨΨϟ΍ϦϣΎϬϴϠϋϝϮμΤϟ΍ϢΗϰΘϟ΍Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍Εή Ϭυ΍ΎϤϛ
βτδϏ΃ ϭ ϮϴϟϮϳ ϭΩϼϴϤϟ΍ϞΒϗ ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍Ι΍ΪΣϻΎΑΔϧέΎϘϣϭΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ΕΎϧΎϓϮρϦϣΔϴΒγϭέ
ΡϭήτϣΔϨϳΪϣΏήϏήΑΎλήϔϛϰϓϯήΤΒϟ΍ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭήϠϟΓΰϴϤϣΪΣ΍ϭΔϘΒρΪΟ΍ϮΗΎϤϨϴΑϮϴϧϮϳ ϭ
βτδϏ΃ϦϴϳήΤΒϟ΍ϦϴϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭέ˯ΎϔΘΧ΍ΐΒγϊΟήϳΪϗϭϮϴϟϮϳ ϝϯήΤΒϟ΍ϥΎϓϮτϟΎΑϪΘϧέΎϘϣϢΗϭ
ήΑΎλήϔϛΔϘτϨϣϦϋϦϴϴϤϠόϟ΍ΔϘτϨϤϟΏήϗ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ϰϗήθϟ΍έΪμϤϟ΍ϥ΍ϰϟ΍ϮϴϧϮϳϭ
ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍ΐγ΍ϭέ ΩϮΟϭϥ·ϞϘΘδϤϟ΍ϰϓΎϬϴϠϋϞϤόϟ΍ϦϜϤϳϰΘϟ΍ΕΎόϠτΘϟ΍ϭΕΎϴλϮΘϟ΍ϦϣΩΪόΑΏΎΒϟ΍΍άϫϰϬΘϨϳϭ
ϰϓ ΎϬϟ Ω΍ΪΘϋϹ΍ ΐΟ ϭ ΍άϟ ϰοΎϤϟ΍ ϰϓ ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ ΙϭΪΣ ϰϠϋ Ϊϴϛ΄Η ϯήμϤϟ΍ ϝΎϤθϟ΍ ϰϓ ΎϴΟϮϟϮϴΟ ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍
ΪϗϰΘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍ϥΎϓϮτϟ΍ΓέϮτΧϦϣΪΤϠϟϯήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟ΍ϰϓήϜΒϣέ΍άϧ΍ΔϤψϧ΍ϞϤόϟΰϴϬΠΘϟ΍ϭήϴπΤΘϟΎΑϞΒϘΘδϤϟ΍
ϖϟΰϧϹ΍ϭ΍ϰλήΒϘϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϞΜϣϻΎϤΘΣ΍ϞϗϹ΍ϯήΧϻ΍έΩΎμϤϟ΍ϰΘΣϭ΍ϰϨϴϠϬϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ϰϓρΎθϨϟΔΠϴΘϧϞΒϘΘδϤϟ΍ϰϓΙΪΤΗ
έΪμϤϟ΍ϦϣΔΟϮϤϟ΍ϝϮλϮϠϟϰϓΎϛϦϣίΩϮΟϭϰϟ΍ΓΎϛΎΤϤϟ΍ϡΎψϧέΎη΃ΪϗϭϯήμϤϟ΍ΡέΎϘϟ΍ΡϮϠϟ΍ΔϗΎΣϰϓϯήΨλ
ΔϳήμϤϟ΍˯ϰρϮθϟ΍ϰΘΣ
ϪϣΪΨΘγϻ ΔԩήΤΑ ΕΎϧΎϓϮρ ΎϬϴϠϋ ΐΗήΘϤϟ΍ ϝ΍ίϻΰϟ΍ ΓϮϗ ΔΠϴΘϧ ΔϳήϳάΤΗ ΔϤψϧ΍ ϰτόϳ ϝϭΪΠϟ Ω΍ΪϋϹ΍ ϢΗ ΍άϟ
ϩάϫϰϓΎϬϴϠϋϝϮμΤϟ΍ϢΗϰΘϟ΍ΕΎϣϮϠόϣϭΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ΕΎϣϮϠόϤϟ΍ϰϠϋ΍ΩΎϤΘϋ΍ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ϒϴϨμΗϢΗΪϗϭέ΍ήϘϟ΍ϰόϧΎμϟ
έΪμϤϟ΍ϦϋΪόΒϟ΍ϭΙΪΤϟ΍ΓϮϗϭΔγ΍έΪϟ΍
ΕΎϧΎϓϮτϟ΍ΕΎϘΒτϟΔϴΟϮϟϮϴΠϟ΍Ε΍Ω΍ΪΘϣϻ΍Δγ΍έΪϟϯήμϤϟ΍ϰϟΎϤθϟ΍ϞΣΎδϟ΍ϰϓϞϤόϟ΍ϝΎϤϜΘγΈΑΔγ΍έΪϟ΍ϰλϮΗΎϤϛ
ΔϳέΪϨϜγϻ΍ϞΣΎδϟΎΑϦϴϠϗ΍ήϫΔϨϳΪϣϕήϏΐΒγϰϓΚΤΒϠϟΕΎγ΍έΩϞϤϋϰϟ΍ΔϓΎοϻΎΑϯήμϤϟ΍ϝΎϤθϟΎΑΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ΔϳήΤΒϟ΍
ΔϨϳΪϤϟ΍ϕήϏ˯΍έϭϰϘϴϘΤϟ΍ΐΒδϟ΍ΔϓήόϣϭϢϳΪϘϟ΍ϰΑϮϨϴϜϟ΍ωήϓΏήϏ
xli
Chapter I
Introduction
The understanding of seismotectonic, earthquake faulting and the recurrence of

paleotsunami in northern Egypt is the first step in seismic hazard assessment and risk
mitigation. The instrumental and historical seismicity catalogues of the Eastern
Mediterranean and northern Egypt help to identify the main seismic and tsunamigenic
zones. Numerous destructive earthquakes and tsunamis have occurred in northern Egypt and
where seismicity was studied by Sieberg, 1932; Ismail, 1960; Maamoun et al., 1984;
Kebeasy, 1990; and Abou Elenean, 1997. The seismic activity is reported to occur in narrow
belts (Levant-Aqaba, Northern Red Sea, Gulf of Suez, Eastern Mediterranean and the Egypt
continental margin) that represent the major tectonic trends in northern Egypt (Fig.1).
According to (Papazachos, 1990; Ambraseys et al., 2005 and Riad et al., 2003),
several kinds of disasters were caused in Syria and Egypt, especially in Alexandria where a
house was ruined and 60 m of the city wall with 27 towers were destroyed (this was
mentioned in the Arabic historical documents (Abu El Fida, 1329). Damage was also seen in
Peloponnese in the northwest of Crete and islands in the Aegean sea. The sea struck the city
with strong force destroying the building and killing theinhabitants in the capital city of
Heraklion in the northeastern Crete. This damage happened during the earthquake which
was followed by a strong tsunami on 8 August 1303. The other example of a large damaging
earthquake was on 21 July 365 which was also followed by a strong tsunami with the
biggest damage reported in Greece, southwest Crete and Alexandria in the Nile Delta. The
houses were destroyed and human lives were lost and the ships were driven by strong
flooding in Alexandria city.
As the first objective of this thesis, I compiled the focal mechanism solutions and
calculated the stress inversions from the seismicity catalogue of Egypt, searched for and
mapped active faults, and used borehole data to develop a seismotectonic analysis from the
stress distribution in my study region. The seismological data and related focal mechanisms
are considered as an excellent source of information on the stress direction in the crust,
which gives accurate pieces of information on the present-day stress field in the Eastern
Mediterranean region and northern Egypt. Several studies deal with the seismotectonic and
stress inversions in North Africa and Eastern Mediterranean such as (Bohnhoff et al., 2005;
Delvaux, 2010; Heidbach et al., 2010; Tingay, 2011; Meghraoui and Pondrelli, 2012;
Nocquet, 2012; and Hussein, 2013). The installation of new GPS stations in Egypt
1
completes the picture of the active deformation in the north-eastern corner of the African
continent and on the northward motion of northeast Nubia with respect to Eurasia
(McClusky et al., 2000; Reilinger et al., 2006; Mahmoud et al., 2005, Saleh and Becker,
2015, Pietrantonio et al., 2016).
Fig. 1 : Seismic activity and tectonic map based on (a geological map of Libya, 1985;
geological map of Egypt EMRA, 2008;Bathworth, 2008) and seismicity data for north Egypt
of NRIAG bulletin from 1997-2016 and the seismicity data of the Eastern Mediterranean
from IRIS bulletin ( http://ds.iris.edu/ds/nodes/dmc/data/types/events/ ).
The north of Egypt has been affected by large earthquakes like in Cairo in 1992 (Mw
5.8), Shadwan, 1969 (Mw=6.1), Gulf of Aqaba, 1995 (Mw=7.2) and by other historical
large earthquakes and tsunamis from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The largest
earthquakes are recorded in historical documents and an updated catalogue of the events of
2
Santorini ~1600 BC, 21 July 365, 8 August 1303, and 24 June 1870. Since the beginning of
the 20th century, many efforts have been directed towards the establishment of a reliable
catalogue of historical seismicity based on the retrieval and assessment of original sources
of information e.g. (Poirier and Taher, 1980; Soloviev et al., 2000; Ambraseys, 2009;
Guidoboni and Ebel, 2009).
The second main objective of this work is the identification of tsunami deposits by
analyzing surface sediments (Holocene age) collected using core drill holes and by
comparison with current tsunami deposits observed elsewhere (Sicily, Algeria, Tohoku,
Sumatra). The complexity of the coastal dynamics is taken into account by the study of
coastal sedimentary processes, paleoenvironmental and sea level fluctuations during the
Holocene. Indeed, the existence of marine fossils in a continental environment associated
with the development of species such as ostracods, diatoms, gastropods, aquatic plants may
indicate long-term salinity changes associated with sudden tsunami floods (Kortekaas and
Dawson, 2007).
The research of paleotsunami deposits consists in the identification and dating of
tsunami deposits developed through testing, systematization and formalization. This work is
usually carried out following a multidisciplinary approach testing several methodologies.
Interesting and promising results are expected from an original combination of
geomorphology, geology with coring of deposits, macrofossils determination, X-ray
scanning, geochemical analysis, microscopic, magnetic susceptibility measurements, etc.
Several studies have been developed for the identification of paleotsunami in the last
20 years using different methodologies. For example, along the coast of Kiritappu, Japan,
Nanayama et al.(2003) identified sand sheets, extending 3 kilometres inland, that show large
tsunamis with coastal inundation every 500 years on average, between 2000 and 7000 years
ago. Similarly, a study of a 7000-year-long record in a coastal lake in Oregon (western
USA), Kelsey et al.(2005) identified 12 paleotsunami deposits over the past 4600 years.
Other long records of multiple tsunamis have been studied in Chile (Cisternas et al., 2005).
Along the coast of South Andaman Island, India, Malik et al.(2015) identified three
historical earthquakes and associated transoceanic tsunamis during the past 1000 years,
depending on the stratigraphy of deposits and related dating. In the Mediterranean, among
paleo-tsunami studies, De Martini et al. (2012) identified two tsunamis deposits during the
first millennium BC and another one in 650-770 AD and estimated an average recurrence
interval for strong tsunamis of ca. 385 years (using chronology include C14, Pb 210 and Cs
13, OSL and tephrochronology) along the eastern coast of Sicily, Italy. Along the Algerian
Coast, Maouche et al. (2009) identified the presence of large boulders in Tipaza to Dellys to
be related to tsunami events in 419 AD and 1700 AD using radiocarbon dating of
3
bioindicators. Along the Egyptian coast, Shaha-Hosseini et al. (2016) identified coastal
boulder accumulations between Alexandria to Marsa Matrouh and with boulders weighing
up to 23 metric tons. By C14dating of (Vermetidae and Dendropoma ) shells found in these
the large boulders, it was found that they were transported by the historical tsunami of 8
August 1303 AD.
It seems that Egypt is lack of tsunami investigations for the tsunami deposits which
are well documented historically. The field surveys of the coastal landscape all around the
Mediterranean coasts should allow 1) the recognition of paleo-tsunami deposits and
landforms, 2) the evaluation of tsunami intensity and frequency, and 3) the propagation
direction that may constrain the tsunamigenic source area.
At the present, paleotsunami data exist only for a limited number of seismically
active regions of the world. The Hellenic arc and related subduction zone are considered as
the hazardous source for tsunamis that may have affected the northern Egyptian coast in the
past and would generate tsunami events in the future. It was supposed that the Thonis -
Heracleion city sunk due to a tsunami event that occurred in the past (??). This city was
founded in 331 BC and was a port of entry to Egypt and Nile River for all ships coming
from the Greek region. A strong earthquake occurred on 21 July 365 located in the western
segment of the Hellenic arc with evidence of up to 9 m of uplift and tilting in Crete Island,
(Stiros, 2010). This event caused a tsunami that devastated the city of Alexandria, Egypt and
sent a wall of water across the Mediterranean Sea toward the north African coast and the
entire eastern Mediterranean including southern Italy (Ambraseys, 2009). Ships in the
harbour at Alexandria were overturned as the water near the coast receded suddenly. Reports
indicate that many people rushed out to loot the hapless ships (this was mentioned by
Ammianus Marcellinus who lived during that time in Ambrayses (2009). The tsunami wave
then rushed in and carried the ships over the sea walls, many landing on top of buildings. In
Alexandria, approximately 5,000 people lost their lives and 50,000 homes were destroyed.
The earthquake on 8 August 1303 was considered the second largest earthquake and tsunami
that affected the Egyptian coast.Old documents describing the disaster of the 1303 tsunami
event, concentrate on the frightening effects of that exceptional seismic tidal wave (tsunami)
which struck many localities in the Mediterranean basin (Ambrayses 2009). Guidoboni and
Comastri(2005) suggested that this extensive sea wave was caused by an earthquake and
with its epicenter between the islands of Crete and Rhodes.
Therefore, the fieldwork, which includes coring and trenching, was carried out to
identify the tsunami deposits along the coast of two investigated sites: El Alamein and Kefr
4
Saber. The low topography and limited human occupation of this region favour the
preservation of tsunami deposits, especially west of Alexandria. The field investigations
were multidisciplinary and include geomorphology and geology, coring with X-ray,
petrochemical and magnetic susceptibilities measurements. The dating was done for
collecting samples of organic matter, fossils, charcoal, plant remains and roots.
Tsunami modelling was carried out using Mirone software developed by Luis (2007)
update version 2.7 the last update on 22 October 2016. According to Luis (2007) in the
Mirone manual software, ¶¶7KLV VRIWZDUH XVHG TINTOL (NSWING) code to perform
tsunami modelling of propagation and inundation. The code models the tsunami
propagation by using the bathymetry grid (as used in this study of gebco data 2014 of 30 arc
seconds) and identify the initial deformation by the Okada (1985) model. The code used the
linear theory in deep sea and with the shallow sea theory and on land with constant grid
length in the whole region. The computation of tsunami wave velocity was done according
to the shallow water equation v = where g is the gravity acceleration and h is the water
FROXPQ GHSWK¶¶ $ WVXQDPLJHQLF event was examined to study the effect of location,
direction, travel time and height towards the Egyptian Coast. Computed tsunami features
such as travel times and wave height distribution are calculated, which are useful in the
evaluation of the tsunami hazard. This is done using the estimated flood zones and
comparison with the tsunami wave height and deposition to help determine the intensity of
tsunamigenic earthquakes and their impact on the northern Egypt coast.
Paleo-tsunami studies in northern Egypt are important because of the following

reasons:- 1) the region includes archaeological monuments found along the Egyptian coast
like the Citadel of Qaitbay, Ruins of the Temple of the King, the Pharaoh Ramesses II (1200
BC) temple, the Rommel's hideout and the Library of Alexandria; 2) the development of
new Cities along the Egyptian coast like New EL Alamein city and 3) the construction of a
nuclear power plant in the area of El-Dabaa on the Egyptian coast. As the Egyptian coastline
was badly damaged in the past, a hazard assessment and mitigation plan need to be
developed for the protection of these sites from future tsunamis.
The chapters of my thesis present three key items: 1) the seismotectonic in the
Eastern Mediterranean and northern Egypt; 2) the paleotsunami works in the northern Egypt
through identifying the tsunami layers; and 3) the modelling of two expected tsunami
scenarios that faced the northern Egypt in the past and may affect it in the near future.
5
The first chapter introduces and presents the importance and the aim of my study.
While the second chapter introduces the methodologies used in this study and the main
definitions in seismotectonic, paleotsunami, modelling and scenarios for tsunamis.
The third chapter I calculated the present day stress regime in northern Egypt from
the collected focal mechanisms using Tensor software version 5.8.5 developed by Delvaux et
al. (2003, 2010).
The fourth chapter discusses the paleotsunami records in the north Egyptian coast
during successive fieldwork trips. In addition to, using the laboratories analysis and different
measurements to find the tsunami signatures.
The fifth chapter deals with the numerical modelling of two worst-case scenarios
built up and processed by Mirone software developed by Luis(2007) update version 2.7 the
last update on 22 October 2016. The snapshots were saved with specific wave travel times
until they arrived at the Egyptian shoreline where wave heights were recorded. In addition to
my modelling, I compared my results with different modelling other authors developed in
northern Egypt.
The sixth chapter presents the final conclusions of my work in the view of
identification of the main seismic active zones in northern Egypt and the tsunami sources in
the Eastern Mediterranean. Also, my concerns about final conclusions of tsunami layers
recorded in northern Egypt and the wave progradation. I end the chapter with perspective
and recommendation items.
6
Chapter II
Methodology
1-Seismotectonic methodology
seismotectonics consists of the study of active tectonics and their relationships with
earthquakes, active faulting and deformation along faults or active regions. It seeks to
correlate the active faults with seismic activity in a certain region through the analysis of
combined regional tectonics, recent instrumentally recorded events, accounts of historical
earthquakes, focal mechanisms, stress tensor and geodynamics. The compilation of such
information helps to identify the main active zones and the possible tsunamigenic zones that
may affect northern Egypt. In this study, the steps of the seismotectonic analysis were
carried out as follows:
1) Collection of the seismicity data and focal mechanisms of magnitude ML IRU
the continental margin and ML IRU WKH ORFDO ]RQHV LQ WKH QRUWK RI (J\SW
from updated earthquake catalogue.
2) Tracing of active faults and geological units from Egyptian geological structural
maps EMRA, (2008) using ArcGIS V10.2 to identify the active tectonic zones.
3) Stress tensor inversion is calculated using Stress Tensor inversion Wintensor
software version 5.8.5 (Delvaux et al.,2003, 2010).
4) Construction of a stress field pattern and GPS map of the study area.
Among the steps of my seismotectonic study, I will briefly describe my procedure to
calculate the stress inversion method in northern Egypt. While the main definition and
details in the methodology of focal mechanisms and stress inversion (i.e Right Dihedron
method and the Rotational Optimization method) will be described in Appendix F.
1.1.Stress inversion
According to Ramsay et al. (2000) ''Stress tensor was identified as an inverse
method for distinguishing the stresses from fault ± slip data obtained from outcrops,
borehole cores or active seismic clusters''. Stress field studies were developed recently by
adding in situ measurements, fault slip data and the focal mechanisms of earthquakes.
Researchers have estimated regional stresses using different methods, for example, using
direct inversion, iterative and grid search methods. These methods help in the reconstruction
of past and present stresses from fault kinematics and/or earthquake focal mechanism data
(Angelier, 1979, 1984; Reches, 1987; Vasseur et al., 1983; Gephart and Forsyth, 1984;
Carey-Gailhardis and Mercier, 1987).
7
In my study area, I calculated the stress inversion of the six main active seismic
zones in northern Egypt using the Delvaux method Delvaux and Sperner(2003) and Delvaux
and Barth(2010). I used the Tensor inversion software version 5.8.5 Delvaux (2003) last
updated on 27 July 2016 to calculate the four parameters of the Stress tensor: the principal
VWUHVV D[HV ıO PD[LPXP FRPSUHVVLRQ ı LQWHUPHGLDWH FRPSUHVVLRQ DQG ı PLQLPXP
compression) and the stress ratLR5 ı- ııO- ı
My first step starts with separating the raw data of the collected focal mechanism
from 1951 to 2016 (Appendix A) into subsets while optimize the stress tensor using
improved Right Dihedron method and the Rotational Optimization for each active zone (see
&KDSWHU ,,, IRUWKHVWUHVV LQYHUVLRQ FDOFXODWLRQ 7KHVWUHVV UHJLPHLQGH[5¶LV FDOFXODWHG
numerically with the Tensor software for each active seismic zone in northern Egypt. It is
defined as a function of the orientation of the stress ellipsoid according to Delvaux et
al.(1997). ,W LV H[SUHVVHGDV H[WHQVLRQDO ZKHQıOLV YHUWLFDO strike-VOLSZKHQı LV YHUWLFDO
DQGFRPSUHVVLRQDOZKHQıLVYHUWLFDO5¶KDVvalues of 0-1 for extension regimes, 1-2 for
strike-slip regimes, and 2-3 for compressional regimes.
Many items are taken into consideration when using the Tensor program in the study
area, including PLQLPL]DWLRQRIGHYLDWLRQĮƕEHWZHHQREVHUYHGDQGWKHRUHWLFDOVOLSVRQ
the fault planes; and 2) maximization of the shear stress magnitude on every fault plane.
This is done in the Tensor program by using the function (F5). The amplitude of rotation
angle value of R (the stress ratio) is tested and progressively reduced until the Tensor is
VWDELOL]HG0RUHRYHUWKHIRFDOSODQHVZKRVHVOLSGHYLDWLRQĮLVPRUHWKDQƕDUHUHPRYHG.
This stress tensor study was considered as an extension and update of previous studies using
inversion of focal mechanism data like (Abou Elenean, 1997; Hussein, 2013; Emad
Mohamed et al., 2015).
2. Paleotsunami, methodology
In 1980, the tsunami researchers around the world speculated that tsunamis do not
leave deposits. However, the reports of several pre-1980s surveys indicated that tsunamis
eroded and deposited sediments, not only sand but also responsibly large boulders and coral
debris. Since the 1990s, and certainly, since 2004, there is no doubt that tsunamis erode and
deposit sediments in the stratigraphy records. In the 1990s, post-tsunami surveys started to
take observations on geological tsunami deposits e.g., (Dawson et al. 1996; Minoura et al.,
1997; Bourgeois et al., 1999; Matsutomi et al., 2001; Gelfenbaum and Jaffe, 2003; Rothaus
et al.,2004).
Since 1900 (the beginning of instrumental location of earthquakes), most tsunamis
have been generated in Japan, Peru, Chile, New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Clague et
8
al., 1994; Sato et al., 1995; Nishimura and Miyagi, 1995; Dawson and Shi, 2000). Some
historic tsunami events have also been identified in the Atlantic Ocean/northwest Europe
(Haslett and Bryant, 2007). A much smaller number of tsunamis have been generated in the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
In the Indian Ocean, the Indo-Australian plate is being subducted beneath the
Eurasian plate at its eastern margin (Gunathilake, 2005) with the Indian plate moving
northeast at around 6 cm per year at an oblique angle to the Java Trench with Sumatra
sliding over the top of the subducting Indian oceanic plate (Sandiford et al., 2005; Richards
et al., 2007; Mosher et al., 2008). Large magnitude earthquakes occur as a result of this
convergence. Field surveys outline the geological and geomorphic effects of the 26
December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami including Szczucinski et al. (2005, 2007) studies of
the environmental and geological impacts of the tsunami on the Thailand coast. Kurian et
al.(2006) describe inundation and geomorphological impacts of the tsunami on the SW coast
of India, documenting before and after beach profiles and quantifying erosion and
deposition by the tsunami. Kench et al.(2006) describe geological effects of the tsunami on
the Maldives, a set of low-lying, mid-ocean coral islands, where deposition dominated
erosion.
The December 2004 tsunami has generated a new view of geological and
geomorphological studies, many using techniques not available when other great tsunamis
occurred, for example, like Alaska 1964, Chile 1960, and Kamchatka 1952, and addressing
questions about the tsunami deposits.
In a number of historical cases, seaward-directed flow and evidence of seaward flow

such as flopped-over plants have been observed on the coastal plain. The drawdown phase
of the tsunami is typically slower than the uprush, however, outflow tends to be
concentrated in topographic lows such as channels. Terrestrial debris from tsunami outflow
has been observed and photographed in the nearshore region in many historical cases. It is
likely that on the shelf, a tsunami deposit looks similar to and might be confused with a
deposit from a flooding river mouth e.g., Wheatcroft and Borgeld(2000), or a storm-surge
return flow e.g.,Aigner and Reineck(1982).
Several criteria, based on tsunami signatures, are used to identify tsunami deposits in
the sediment cores and trenches. The following summarizes the most common tsunami
signatures in sediments as evidenced from previous tsunami studies :
a) A sharp lower contact is a common feature found in high-energy wave deposits
regardless of the exact hydrodynamic process.
9
b) Ripped-up clasts of underlying strata are very common in tsunami sediments
(Bridge, 2008; Wang & Horwitz, 2007).
c) Concentrations of major heavy minerals such as tourmaline or zircon are entirely
sited GHSHQGHQW-DJRG]LĔVNLHWDO2009); other observations rely on reduced heavy mineral
content (Dahanayake & Kulasena, 2008).
d) The macro and microfaunal assemblages (benthic foraminifera, ostracods,
gastropods, shells) within tsunami deposits tend to contain many broken reworked fossils
from a wide range of marine, brackish and even freshwater habitats (Kortekaas & Dawson,
2007).
e) The geochemical pattern of an overwash sediment body solely proves marine
flooding but does not represent a criterion to distinguish between tsunami or storm origin
(Chagué-Goff., 2010).
f) The measurements of magnetic susceptibility may provide definite signatures of
paleo-tsunami deposits. According to Font et al. (2010), the magnetic susceptibility data
indicate that the tsunami deposits were characterized by a very low magnetic susceptibility
values linked to amounts of sand (i.e. paramagnetic) originated from the littoral dunes and
mixed with inland sediments with tsunami wave reworked.
2.1. Examples of cores and trenching in tsunami and paleotsunami research

Some recent tsunami events, for example, the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami or the 11 March 2011 Tohoku Japan tsunami, have provided a valuable view for
future studies on old tsunamigenic deposits (Paris et al., 2007).
These two recent tsunamis resulted in more than ~ 184,167 deaths, and the total or
partial destruction of more than 250,000 buildings, including harbours, seawalls, and other
coastal protection structures (Nandasena et al. 2011). Fatalities from the Indian Ocean
tsunami and earthquake in Indonesia alone totalled 128,645, with more than 37,063 persons
missing and 532,898 persons displaced (USAID 2005).
Ishimura et al.(2015), studied historical and paleotsunami deposits during the last
4000 years including deposits of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. In their study, they used canal
trenches which were 2 m deep and 300 m from the shoreline. The 2011 Tohoku tsunami had
a maximum runup height of 26-29.4 m at Koyadori and minimum run-up height of 5.8-8.9
m at Osawa (Haraguchi and Iwamatsu, 2011). The resulting tsunami deposit was recognized
by beach and beach ridge sourced sand and gravel found up to 600 m inland in December
2012. Tsunami deposits were identified at by their grain composition, size, and roundness,
which widely differed from those of the background deposits (e.g., peat and debris flow
deposits). They also used the radiocarbon dating and tephra analysis to establish the
10
geochronology in the KYD-trench wall sediments and to correlate tsunami deposits with
historical tsunami events.
Borrero et al.(2006) examined the tsunami deposits of 2004 Indian Ocean event in
pits and trenches along 800 km of the shoreline from Breuh Island to Teluk Bandera in Batu
Islands three months after this event. They examined the paleotsunami deposits by push
cores. Bent vegetation, within or at the base of tsunami deposits, was used to determine flow
direction. These tsunami deposits were composed primarily of sand and their thickness
varied from site to site. Deposits were usually composed of multiple layers; the total
thickness may reflect deposition during multiple waves and/or during uprush and return
flow. The causes of the observed variability in grading include differences in the processes
of deposition suspension versus bed load and in the spatial and temporal gradients in
transport. The typical thickness was 5-20 cm, while the greatest thickness was 70 cm. The
maximum tsunami runup height was 13 m at the northern Simeulue Island.
Polonia et al. (2013) examined the paleotsunami tributaries in cores in Malta and
western Crete Island. Their results depend on the changes of sedimentology and
geochemical pattern in the stratigraphy of cores. The radioactive dating shows the presence
of the 21 July 365 in the Malta and western Crete cores.
My studies of tsunami deposits from coring and trenching described as follows:-
2.2. a. X-ray scanning

The x-ray scanning method used in chest scanning was used as an effective tool to
identify small-scale sedimentary structures (e.g. sharp contacts, convoluted layers, etc.)
which were not clearly detected through sedimentological changes, as well as the presence
of bioturbation, or a fining upward of grain size and possibly erosional, basal contact like in
paleotsunami studies such as (Bertrand et al. 2005; Gerardi et al., 2012).
In this study, 12 cores of a total of 24 tubes were scanned in the Royal Scanning
Laboratory in Helwan, Cairo. Each 40 cm of the tube was scanned with a different level of
radiation (the x-ray spectra ranged from 80-100 KV until the best contrast at the lowest
radiation dose was achieved).
Each 40 cm of the tube were scanned with overlaps of 5 cm and then pasted together
with Adobe Illustrator V. 6 software. Details like fossil content arrangements and
stratigraphic markers like contacts, grain size were recognized along the cores in my studied
area and indicate tsunami layers (see Chapter V). Moreover, the tube of unclear x-ray
scanning may reflect high sedimentation rate.
11
2.2.b. Magnetic susceptibility
According to Handely(2000) ''The magnetic susceptibility of a mineral is defined as
WKH PHDVXUH RI LWV µPDJQHWL]DELOLW\¶ LQ WKH SUHVHQFH RI D VPDOO PDJQHWLF ILHOG ,Q
PDWKHPDWLFDOWHUPVWKHYROXPHPDJQHWLFVXVFHSWLELOLW\țLVGHILQHGDVWKHUDWLREHWZHHQ
induced magnetization per volume unit of the measured sample (M), an applied magnetic
field intensity (H):
ț 0+
6LQFH0DQG+KDYHWKHVDPH6,XQLWV $PțLVDGLPHQVLRQOHVVQXPEHU+RZHYHULWLV
FRPPRQSUDFWLFHWRUHSRUWYROXPHVXVFHSWLELOLW\LQZKDWDUHNQRZQDVµ6,XQLWV¶DQGRIWHQ
omitting the 10-5 multiplier!)''.
Magnetic susceptibility (MS) measurements were used as a good tool in identifying

the plaeotsunami deposits for example Bertrand et al.(2005); Font et al. (2010); Polonia et
al. (2013). The main idea of these works of MS measurements is that it detects a tsunami
layer as having the lowest magnetic susceptibility values with peak values reflecting
sediments rich in carbonates and high organic matter. In addition, low MS values, give
evidence that a core is characterized by a higher sedimentation rate and high fossil content.
Magnetic susceptibility measurements provide a quantifiable, nondestructive and
economic method for inter-correlation between cores. The MS variations of marine and
lacustrine sediments indirectly reflect the proportion of biogenic (carbonates and silica) to
lithogenic (clay and detrital) components (Sangode et al. 2001). In my study, magnetic
susceptibility measurements were carried out using a Bartington MS-2 system (Fig. 2) to
measure cores with a sampling rate of 3 cm. The measurements were carried out in the
Geomagnetic Laboratory of the National Research Institute of Geophysics and Astronomy
(NRIAG, Helwan).
Corrections for air were done using drift during the measurement period being linear
and each measurement in the sequence is corrected by subtracting the estimated air reading
at that time. The correction air value estimated for each point as:
Air value = first air + (final air * n/N)
:KHUHQ WKHUHDGLQJQXPEHU«HWFDQGN = number of reading +1
The correction is done using the Multisus software supplied by Bartington instruments.
12
Fig. 2: Bartington MS-2 Magnetic Susceptibility measurements.
2.2.c. Sampling and Macrofossil detections

We collected samples in this study as follows, first, 120 samples were collected from
core tubes every 15 cm for the geochemical analysis (Fig. 3) including grain size, bulk
mineralogy and totally organic and inorganic matter. Each sample was 25 grams, weighed
using a sensitive balance. Then the samples are sent to Central Metallurgical Research
Center Laboratory, Cairo, Egypt. This procedure of the sample analyses is described in
detail in the next section. Second, sampling was used for macrofossils detection and carbon
dating. The sediments contain several species of gastropods and bivalves (broken or in
fragments) bones, charcoal, minerals (crystals like anhydrite that reflect the lagoon
environment) and unidentified constituents (Fig. 4). Identified gastropods species are Conus
and Tympanotonos fuscatus species, which reflect the lagoon environment. The collected
samples helped to: (1) recognize sedimentary layers containing particles transported by
tsunami (broken shells are more likely to be transported); and (2) to reconstruct the origin of
the shells, as some of them are from lagoon environment and others are transported by
waves and boulders to the shoreline like the Dendropoma (Fig. 4 N, O).
13
Fig. 3: Collected samples in this study of 25 grams for grain size and X-ray diffraction and
totally organic and inorganic measurements
Fig. 4: Photos of the collected samples from cores and trenches in the studied area.
2.2. d. Geochemical analysis

The geochemical pattern was traced across the cores to define the paleotsunami
deposits. The 120 collected samples in 24 core tubes were analysed using grain size, X-ray
14
diffraction, totally organic and inorganic matter measurements. The geochemical analysis
will be described in brief as following:-
Grain size analysis

The samples were collected from the cores and weighed before being sent to Central
Metallurgical Research Center Laboratory, Cairo. The procedures include separating the
weighed samples through a series of sieves (or screens) from 0.75 to 1000 microns. The
distribution of size particles is determined by weighing the material remaining on each of
the sieves and dividing these weights by the total weight of the sample. A correction is made
for the moisture content of the sample so that all calculations are based on dry weight. The
method requires drying, washing, during a series of separations.
I calculated the grain-size distribution statistics with gun plot software and excel 2013 (see
Appendix D). Grain-size statistical parameters and graphic representations are given LQ ĳ
units. Converting from microns to mm (as 1 micron = 10-3 mm) to Phi units using the
following equation: -
ட= - log (d)
2 where d is grain diameter in millimetres
The calculated grain size analyses distribution parameters have been calculated
following Folk and Ward (1957) to determine to mean grain size, sorting, skewness,
Kurtosis (see Appendix F for detailed equations). The most useful parameters of grain-size
analysis for this study are the mean grain size and sorting. Extremely poor sorting reflects
tsunami layers. Also, the high mean grain-size of sediments, which means coarser grain size,
reflects high rich organic matter in cores analyses (see the section of coring analyses and
interpretation in Chapter IV).
Total organic and organic matter

TOC content can be measured directly or can be determined if the total carbon
content and inorganic carbon contents are measured according to the following equation
(Jones 1925).
In soils and sediments, the total carbon means, (Total Carbon = Inorganic Carbon +
Organic Carbon)
In this study, the total organic and inorganic carbon are calculated by weight percent
in cores. Organic carbon (Corg) in the sediments was analyzed at Central Metallurgical
Research Center Laboratory, Cairo, Egypt using treatment with hydrogen peroxide H2O2.
This treatment was unlike combustion methods and it would not be expected to affect the
combined water content or change of weight of the inorganic material (Jones,1925).
15
The samples were treated with hydrogen chloride HCl to calculate the inorganic carbon by
note the loss of weight before and after treatment.
X-ray diffraction
According to (Pecharsky et al., 2009), X-ray diffraction (XRD analysis) is a very
useful tool for the identification of bulk mineral phases in powder specimens in the form of
powder thin-film samples. The key for identifying materials by this method is their unique
crystalline structure.The XRD instrument was called an X-ray diffractometer see Appendix
F for the details of methodology and theory.
In cooperation with the Central Metallurgical Research Center Laboratory, Cairo, the
collected samples were mounted in X-ray specimen holder on glass slides. The powder
specimens were stuck on a glass slide using double-sided tape or Vaseline. The machine is
equipped with a Philips PW 1730 X-ray diffractometer (Fig. 5) to measure the samples in
the studied area under target Fe, filter Mn, KV 30, Ma 20, with speed 1 degree.
The data were analyzed in a semi-quantitative way following Cook et al. (1975). The
intensity of the most intense diffraction peak of each mineral (see AppendixB) was
measured and the identification of crystalline substance and crystalline phases in a specimen
is achieved by comparing the specimen diffraction spectrum with spectra of known
crystalline substances (Table 1). X-ray diffraction data from a known substance (called
fingerprint) are recorded as a powder diffraction file (PDF).
Most PDFs were obtained with Cu.Įradiation Standard diffraction published by the
International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) and summarized in Table 1, and they are
updated and expanded from time to time.
Fig. 5: Philips PW 1730 X-ray diffractometer used in the study.
16
Table 1: Diffraction standard main peak identify minerals according to (ICDD)
Minerals Principal diffraction peak (Å)

Gypsum (CaSo4.2H2O 7.56
Quartz 3.34
Calcite 2.92
Dolomite (CaMg(Co3)2 2.89
Feldspar (Albite) 3.1875
Feldspar (Orthoclase ) 3.3193
Aragonite 3.3985
Halite 2.81
Goethite 4.19
Pyrite (FeS) 2.7090
Illite 10
Montmorillonite 15
2.2.e. Radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon is a defined as an isotope of carbon which is radioactive with and has a
half-life of about 5730 years and has the symbol of C14 (Bowman, 1990).
The C14 is produced by the interactions of cosmic rays with the atmosphere. The
resulting radiocarbon combines with the atmosphere which is incorporated into plants and
then by animals after they eat plants containingC14. When an organism dies, carbon stops
being absorbed. As the C14 radioactively decays to nitrogen, the remaining percentage
remains as C14. Samples older than about 50,000 years have a C14 concentration that is in
practice too small to measure; so they cannot be dated via C14.
The C14 dating of the samples in the natural environment should be corrected for the
variations in the in the C14/C12 ratio of the atmosphere, ocean, or another reservoir the
sample was formed. Numerous calibration curves have been introduced by many authors in
the last few years such as Reimer et al. (2009, 2013).
In my study, 46 samples were collected from cores and trenches in both study areas
(see Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix E) for collecting samples and calibration dating curve using
Oxcal,Bronk Ramsay 2013) for dating the paleotsunami deposits. These samples were sent
to two laboratories (Poznan laboratory, Poland and Beta Analytical Laboratory, USA) for
radiocarbon dating to identify dates of the historical tsunami layers. The collected samples
were made of charcoal, plants (Fig. 6), bones, gastropods, shells and organic matter. The
17
radiocarbon dating results of charcoal and organic matter were calibrated using Oxcal
software (Bronk-Ramsay, 2009) with the IntCal13 calibration curve.
Fig. 6: Photo of plant remains that were dated in our study in the Beta Analytical
laboratory.
3.Tsunami modelling
According to Power (2013)µ¶Tsunami modelling was defined as a set of
mathematical formula that describes the physical characteristics of the tsunami to evaluate
and predict the evolution of tsunami waves and their coastal impact. Tsunami models can be
used to estimate the probable arrival times of tsunami, their amplitudes, inundation ranges,
flow depths and/or current speeds. There are two main types of tsunami models: numerical
models (i.e., computer-derived models) and empirical models¶¶.
When creating a numerical simulation, consideration should be given to the source
mechanism and bathymetry grid in order to produce realistic and accurate results. As an
example, there is a difference between using source parameters for local and far-field
tsunamis to identify the local and far-field tsunamis run up. For far-field tectonic tsunamis,
the line on the fault or even a point is sufficient to identify the runup height averaged over
large distances. In contrast, local tsunamis require a full source identified by rupture area as
well as consideration of temporal and spatial changes in the source parameters of the
earthquake.
Numerical simulations have been developed and progressed during the past 30 years.
The ongoing research into developing the numerical tsunami models is aimed at giving
better and faster computing of the origin of tsunami wave propagation, inundation or impact
on the coastal zone. Examples of common modelling used are: submarine mass failure
18
model by Hampton et al. (1996); the Antonio Baptista model by Baptista (1995);
µTSUNAMI-1¶GHYHORSHGE\Goto et al. (1997); the most famous model used in the world,
Tsunami propagation and inundation model (Geowave) by Madsen et al. (2002), Fuhrman
and Bingham (2004); and Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) by Burwell et al.(2007).
The most important task of the propagation modelling was to estimate the arrival time and
wave heights. In addition, these models help us in understanding the behaviour of tsunamis,
and to estimate the damage and tsunami risk.
My procedure in this study is to develop two simple scenarios based on the
geological evidence observed at the paleotsunami investigation sites of Kefr Saber and EL
Alamein (see Chapter IV). These two scenarios started from the Eastern and Western
Hellenic arc tsunamigenic zone and affected the northern Egypt (see Chapter VI for
estimated wave height and travel times). The scenarios were developed using Mirone
software version 2.70 (updated by 22 October 2016; Luis, 2007), the software was created
by the MATLAB tool and using TINTOL code. We create the initial wave by using two
selective fault parameters for the eastern and western Hellenic arc sources (see chapter VI
for details of the fault ruptures used i.e. location, length, width, depth, rake, slip). The Okada
(1985) model are used to identify the co-seismic displacement in the Mirone software.
Five possible scenarios for both the eastern and western Hellenic arcs were
developed and the best two scenarios were chosen based on recent large focal mechanism
earthquakes in the Hellenic region with increasing the magnitude to reaches the magnitude
of historical events of 21 July 365 and 8 August 1303. Then I compute the tsunami wave
according to shallow wave theory QXPHULFDOVKDOORZZDWHUHTXDWLRQY ¥*KZKHUHJLVWKH
acceleration of gravity, v is propagation velocity and h is depth (See details of equation in
Appendix F) and using Mirone software to spread the tsunami across the bathymetry grid
(30 arc seconds) in the study area (available from http://www.gebco.net/; Gebco 2014).
4. Concluding remarks
For the seismotectonic methodology, we collected instrumental and historical
earthquake recordings, surface faults, tectonic and geological setting, and earthquake focal
mechanisms data and GPS velocity vectors to give a general picture of the seismotectonic in
the northern Egypt and adjacent areas of Eastern Mediterranean. We used the stress
inversion method to calculate the present-day stress of six main active zones in the north of
Egypt as a part of a study of the seismotectonic setting. To begin, we prepared a dataset of
focal mechanisms from 1951 to 2016. We then used the right dihedron method and the
rotational optimization method to calculate the four parameters of the Stress tensor: the
SULQFLSDO VWUHVV D[HV ıO PD[LPXP FRPSUHVVLRQ ı LQWHUPHGLDWH FRPSUHVVLRQ DQG ı
19
PLQLPXPFRPSUHVVLRQDQGWKH6WUHVV5DWLR5 ı- ııO- ıDQGHYDOXDWHWKHVWUHVV
index regime.
For the paleotsunami methodology, different methods are used in my study to
identify the paleotsunami deposits such as 1) X-ray scanning which used an x-ray spectra
range of 80-100 KV to identify the broken shell fragments or identify the sharp contacts or
sedimentation rate. 2) magnetic susceptibility measured by a Bartington MS-2 system with a
sampling rate of 3 cm. The peak of magnetic susceptibility with values close to zero reflects
the richness of organic matter and carbonates in paleotsunami deposits. 3) geochemical
methods useful in determining the changes along the cores by grain size analysis to
determine the mean and sorting using Folk and Ward (1957); bulk mineralogy used the x-
ray diffraction method to identify the minerals and to determine the abrupt changes in
mineral compositions and related source environment; total organic carbon is determined by
treating with H2O2 to identify the organic matter enrichment in the tsunami deposits.
For the tsunami numerical modelling, we test five scenarios for both the Eastern and
Western Hellenic arc based on our main findings of deposits of the 21 July 365 and 8
August 1303 tsunamis. We used Mirone software developed by Luis (2007) and this
program used the TINTOL model code to compute travel time and the wave height in the
study area.
There are some problems and limitations in the applying these methodologies. The
uncertainties in stress inversion determination were due to geological and mechanical errors
which generally fall in the range of measurement errors (Dupin et al., 1993 and Pollard et
al., 1993). Moreover, a numerical quality index was evaluated to measure the accuracy of
the results in the Tensor program based on the total number of data, the average slip
GHYLDWLRQ Įƕ WKH QXPEHU RI VROXWions kept (Delvaux and Sperner, 2003). Although, the
solution of the stress axes parallel to the fault plane was removed to increase the accuracy
the solutions.
There are also some limitations and problems in the paleotsunami methodology. The
radiocarbon dating method may have some uncertainty related to mixing or reworking of
surrounding plant materials in the cores. The shells from both marine and land organisms
consist almost entirely of calcium carbonate which often dissolves and recrystallize which
could give errors in the dating of shell samples. The correction of reservoir effects was
applied to shells and collected gastropods samples in my study area using (Oxcal, Bronk
Ramsy 2013) software. We calculated ǻ5 IURP WKH QHDUHVW SRLQWV LQ WKH (DVWHUQ
Mediterranean database of dated shells and we applied thiVYDOXHǻ5 DQGXQFHUWDLQW\
161 to correct the samples dating against reservoir effect in my studied area.
20
With respect to the tsunami modelling, most propagation models assumed that
coastlines behave as perfect reflectors of tsunami waves. This assumption omits the natural
dissipation of tsunami energy which occurs when they run-up against the shore (Dunbar et
al., 1989). This leads to a gradual reduction of the accuracy of the model. This is a particular
problem for modelling the effect of a tsunami from distant sources, as incoming waves may
arrive over the course of several hours and interact with earlier waves, especially in
ORFDWLRQV ZKHUH WVXQDPL ZDYHV PD\ EHFRPH µWUDSSHG¶ ZLWKLQ ED\V DQG LQOHWV DV DQ DUHD
between Alexandria and El Alamein.
Moreover, the characterization of the tsunami source and the resolution of the
bathymetry data may represent uncertainty for tsunami modelling. The tsunami source
problem is due to little source information availability. We overcome this problem because
of the diversity of historical information and studies for the source locations for 21 July 365
and 8 August 1303 tsunami events.
21
22
Chapter III
Seismotectonic of northern Egypt
3.1. Introduction
Egypt is part of the northern African continent. It is affected by tectonic movements
due to the proximity of the tectonic boundaries of the Eurasia, African and Arabian plates
and significant seismic activity such as the Hellenic subduction zone. Northern Egypt is
affected by the opening of the Red Sea and tectonic movement along the Gulf of Suez and
Gulf of Aqaba- Dead Sea transform fault.
The seismicity of northern Egypt was studied by many authors among them Sieberg,
1932; Ismail, 1960; Gergawi and El Khashab, 1968; Maamoun et al., 1984; Kebeasy, 1990;
Abou Elenean 1997; Ambraseys et al., 2005. In their studies, the seismic activity is reported
in narrow belts (Levant-Aqaba, Northern Red Sea, Gulf of Suez, Eastern Mediterranean, and
Egypt continental margin) which represent the major tectonic trends in northern Egypt.
While the Western Desert and Nile Delta are characterized by low-level seismicity.
The seismicity data and focal mechanisms used in this chapter are collected for
magnitude ML for the continental margin and for ML for inland in northern Egypt
from the updated Egyptian earthquake catalogue (see references Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12
of focal mechanism solutions in Appendix A). The seismicity catalogue is divided into
historical (pre-1900 AD) and instrumental with different level of completeness. Instrumental
earthquakes during the period 1900 to 2016 were collected from (IRIS)
(http://ds.iris.edu/seismon/) and an online bulletin provided by the National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) for the period from 1950 to 2016
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/), and Egyptian Research Institute of Astronomy
Bulletins of the Egyptian National Seismic Network for events which occurred after 1997 in
Egypt. Additionally, published data on historical earthquakes was also considered e.g.
(Ambraseys et al. 2005; Guidoboni et al. 2009, and Ambraseys 2009).
In order to study the recent stress field of northern Egypt, we first collect all focal
mechanisms in a catalogue and study the active faulting distribution. Secondly, we perform
stress inversion using the Tensor program Delvaux and Sperner (2003). This procedure
depends on two major assumptions for the study region: a) the stress field is uniform and
invariant in space and time, and b) earthquake slip occurs in the direction of maximum shear
stress (Bott, 1959).
23
The aim of this chapter is to study the seismotectonic setting of the active seismic
zone of northern Egypt through the analysis of late Quaternary geological and tectonic
structures, their main faults trends, the seismicity through historical and instrumental data,
focal mechanisms with stress distribution and active deformation with GPS data. This
chapter will also deal with the geology and tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean and the
possible tsunamigenic sources in the Eastern Mediterranean active zones, which will be
discussed in Chapter IV.
3.2. Geological and tectonic settings of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Egyptian
continental margin
The present-day geological configuration of the Mediterranean region is the result of
the opening and subsequent consumption of two major oceanic basins, the Paleo-Theys
(mostly Paleozoic) and the Neotethys (Late Paleozoic-Mesozoic) and additional smaller
oceanic basins (e.g. the Atlantic Alpine Tethys). This has occurred within an overall regime
of prolonged interaction between the Eurasian and African-Arabian plates (Robertson and
Dixon, 1984; Stampfli et al., 2001).
The Eastern Mediterranean is a tectonically complex basin and is a relic of the

Mesozoic Neotethys Ocean (Garnfunkel, 2004) with its evolution strongly related to the
active subduction along the Hellenic arc. The present tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean
was developed by the northward convergence of the African plate relative to the Eurasian at
a rate of 1cm/yr while the Aegean Sea represents an extensional basin with opening rates in
the order of 3.5-4 cm/year (McKenzie, 1972; McClusky et al., 2000). The African plate
oceanic lithosphere is nowadays subducted along the two small Hellenic and Cyprian arcs.
The Hellenic Trench (Fig. 7) is parallel to the Hellenic Arc which consists of an
outer sedimentary arc and an inner volcanic arc. The average distance between them is 120
km. The sedimentary arc (Hellenides Mts, Ionian Islands, Crete, Rhodos) connects
Dinarides and Hellenides mountains to the Tauride mountains in southwestern Turkey
(Benetatos et al., 2004). Between the sedimentary and volcanic arcs South of Crete, the sea
has a maximum depth of 2 km. The African oceanic lithosphere is subducting under the
continental Aegean Sea lithosphere as part of the collision process of the Africa±Eurasia
plates. This leads to the formation of an inclined seismic zone ²a Benioff zone dipping to
the NE to a depth of about 150±200 km (Papazachos, 1990).
The Hellenic zone subduction appears to have been activated continuously since the
late Cretaceous (Arsenikos et al., 2013). According to Benetatos et al. (2004), the
distribution of focal mechanisms along the Hellenic Arc shows that:
24
1) Along the central Mediterranean rise, a general NE-SW to NNW-SSE
compression trend exists in the outer part of the Hellenic Arc. It starting south of Zante and
up to the coast of Turkey, is deforming through high angle reverse mechanisms. These faults
mechanisms are responsible for the rapid uplift in the western coast of Crete
2) At the inner part of the Hellenic Arc, a narrow zone is developed along the whole
extent of the Arc which is characterized by the presence of N±S trending normal faults. This
zone consists of an accretion prism up to the volcanic arc and is deforming by normal
faulting with the T-axes having an almost E±W direction. The normal faulting does not
occur deeper than 35 km and is underlain by active shortening result from gravitational
collapse.
3) Along-arc extension continuous up to the coast of southern Turkey following the

Taurides Mountain range. The back-arc area, starting north of the volcanic arc deforms by
normal faulting where the T-axes have the N±S direction at the Aegean Sea. The western
coast of Peloponnese is deforming by strike-slip faulting where, if the NE±SW trending
planes are selected as the fault planes, then this faulting is parallel to the Cephalonia strike-
slip fault and the sense of strike-slip motion is dextral (Fig. 7, Scordilis et al., 1985).
The island of Crete represents an emergent high at the fore-arc of the subduction
zone, indicating the transition between the African and Eurasian plates. The Hellenic arc is
associated with moderate arc-parallel extension and strong compression perpendicular or
oblique to it. Three successive fault groups occupy the Crete Island. The first represents E-
W trending faults of kilometric scale, mainly cutting the basement rocks or bound basement
rocks and Miocene sediments. The second group consists of large and moderate scale N-S
striking faults, cutting the previously mentioned group. The third group comprises
kilometric scale faults striking NE-SE, which appear to be youngest faults occurring on
Crete Island (Fig. 7, Kokinou et al., 2008).
East of the Eastern Mediterranean region, the Cyprian arc forms a plate boundary
between the Anatolian plate in the north and the Nubian and Sinai plates in the south. It has
been deformed in late Cenozoic (Ben Avraham et al., 1988; Kempler and Garfunkel,
1994).It is connected to the Hellenic arc in the west, and the Dead Sea Transform Fault and
East Anatolian Fault in the east. A northward subduction of the African Plate beneath the
Anatolian Plate indicates the existence of convergent mode along the western segment of the
Cyprian arc (Ben Avraham et al., 1988). The Anatolian block escapes from the collision
between Eurasia and Arabia by moving south-westwards forming the Hellenic and Cyprian
Arcs (McKenzie, 1984). The geological structure in Eastern Mediterranean region is
observed in the following bathymetry and structural map (Fig.8).
25
Fig. 7: Summary of the distribution of focal mechanisms for earthquakes along the Hellenic
trench constructed based on (Cavazza et al., 2004; Billi et al., 2011; Benetatos et al., 2004),
(see reference Table 14,15 of focal mechanisms data in Appendix A).
26
Fig.8: Morphotectonic map of the Mediterranean with major, simplified geological
structures offshore constructed based on bathymetry data of ETOPO1 (1 min arc-minute
global relief model of Earth's surface; https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global); Reilinger et
al., 2006).
The Egyptian continental margin (Fig. 9) is located to the south of the Mediterranean
Sea ridge behind the Herodotus abyssal plain where the sea floor is occupied by the Nile
Deep-Sea fan, Eratosthenes Seamount, and Herodotus basin. It represents the transition zone
between the continental-oceanic crusts where the stress field changes from dominant tension
over Egyptian territory to dominant compression along the Hellenic Arc convergence zone
(experiencing north-south compression), as demonstrated in several studies (Abu Elenean,
1997; Korrat et al., 2005; Abou Elenean and Hussein, 2007; Bosworth, 2008). The
Herodotus abyssal plain (Fig. 8) is behind the Mediterranean Ridge. It is characterized by
mud and salt diapers where rapid loading of shale and salt horizons by the clastics provided
by the Nile River resulted in a progressive gravitational gliding of sedimentary wedge
toward the North, coeval with the development of listric faults.
27
The tectonic framework and structural pattern of the Egyptian continental margin
(Fig. 9) are the results of the interplay between three main fault trends: the northwest-
southeast Temsah zone; the northeast-southwest Rosetta zone; and the east-west to ENE-
WSW continental fault trends (Abdel Aal et al., 1994). These tectonic trends seem to belong
to the reactivation of the basement faults. Other secondary fault trends are mapped and
delineated in the west-northwest±east-southeast and east-northeast±west-southwest tectonic
directions (Selim, 2012) in addition to the north-south Baltim fault trend (Mosconi et al.,
1996; Abdel Aal et al. 2000).
Fig. 9: Map of the Egyptian continental margin with major simplified geological structures
onshore and offshore based on tectonic tectonics structures elements from (Abdel Aal et al.
1994; Egyptian geological map EMRA, 2008; bathymetry data of ETOPO1 (1 min arc-
minute global relief model of Earth's surface; https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/)).
The physiographic elements of the coastal zone and adjacent seafloor is shown in
Fig. 9. The Mediterranean Ridge and the Nile Deep-Sea Fan are the major morphostructral
domains in the southeastern Mediterranean Sea. The Mediterranean Ridge is a long
accretionary prism between the Africa and Alpine belt, consisting of sediments which are
scraped off from the subduction plate. The Nile Deep Sea Fan is the largest sedimentary
clastic accumulation within the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The interpretation of the marine
geophysical survey PRISMED II conducted over a large area of the Nile Deep-Sea Fan
explained the morphostructure in and around it (Mcclusky et al., 2000; Loncke et al. 2002;
28
Gaullier et al., 2000). The Nile Deep Sea Fan is bounded by the Dead Sea shear zone to the
east and the Cyprus convergent zone and the Mediterranean Ridge to the north.
The continental margin bordering the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is characterized by

a narrow continental shelf extending from the shoreline seaward to the shelf edge at about
15±20 km. However, the shelf in the region between Rosetta mouth and Bardawil Lagoon
becomes wider, where it ranges from 48 to 64 km (Ross and Uchupi, 1977). The continental
shelf in the western part is affected by a series of WNW trending faults. The present steep
faulted continental slope, which has a rectilinear WNW orientation, varies in width from 34
to 56 km off western Egypt to about 20 km seaward of the Nile Delta. The coastal and
continental shelf margin is offset abruptly to the WNW at several places, especially at the
Gulf of Salloum and Gulf of Bomba.
In the area immediately seaward of the Nile Delta, the slope shows a fairly well-
developed stratification with many closely spaced normal faults (Korrat et al., 2005). In
principle, the continental margin can be considered a zone of weakness which experienced
thinning of the crust during the Triassic period (Sofratome, 1984).
3.3. Geology and tectonics setting of Northern Egypt

The Mesozoic to the Tertiary tectonic history of northern Egypt had a significant
effect on the formation of the Nile Delta, Cairo-Suez, Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba, and
Sinai.
According to Abdel Aal et al. (1994) using 2D seismic profiles; the tectonic history
of northern Egypt is divided into three main phases based on 2D seismic profiles wells data:
¶¶The first phase, a thick wedge of Early and Middle Mesozoic sediments was
deposited. The southern edge of this sequence is north of a late Paleozoic and Early
Mesozoic E-W trending faulting zone which bisects the Sinai (Abdel Aal et al., 1992)and
bounded the intracratonic Abu Gharadig basin in the central northwestern desert. The deep
structures in the Nile Delta show that the hinge line bisected the delta parallel to pre-
existing E-W fault trends (Fig.13). During the Triassic and Jurassic, the opening of Tethys
Sea led to a left lateral motion of Eurasia relative to Africa (Robertson & Dixon, 1984).
This movement resulted in a system of NE-SW to ENE-WSW trending faults either normal
faults or strike-slip faults with left lateral motion in northern Egypt, including northern
Sinai (Mesherf, 1990). These faults are parallel to the PelusiumMegashear system (Fig.10,
Neev and Hali, 1982). The NE trending Rosetta fault is parallel to Pelusium and the
Jurassic NE to ENE faults along the extension of northwestern desert ''Qattara- Alamein''
29
ridge. These probably resulted in the right lateral oblique±slip movement along the Rosetta
fault during the Early Miocene (Abdel Aal et al., 1994).
The second phase, during the late Cretaceous-early Tertiary, the NW-SE oblique
compression related to the closing of Tethys Sea as a result of Eurasia moving southeast
relative to Africa (Orwig, 1982). The oblique compression resulted in a series of an echelon
NE-SW trending, double anticline belt (Syrian Arc structures) in northern Sinai and in
Alamein and Abu Roash in the Western Desert, and NW to NNW extension faults parallel to
the major contraction force that affected northern Egypt. The compressional stresses
generated NW to NNW extension faults parallel to major compressional stresses that
affected northern Egypt (Abdel Aal et al., 1994).
The third tectonic phase started from the late Eocene and up to recent times. At the
beginning, the northeastward motion of the Arabian Peninsula yielded the opening of the
Red Sea; subsequently, the rifting propagated toward the Gulf of Suez area. The rifting is
thought to be cumulative in the early ± middle Miocene when stresses of the Red Sea rift
were transferred along the Aqaba-Levant area generating a left ± lateral transform fault
that extends through the Gulf of Aqaba northeastward to the Dead Sea, with a minor
extensional component (Steckler et al., 1988). The dominated motions were affected by three
fault trends during Late Eocene-Miocene. The first trend is the Gulf of Suez NNW trending
normal faults observed in the central Nile Delta. The second is the NNE faults trend related
to the development of the Gulf of Aqaba rift which is formed from the Miocene up to recent
by left lateral oblique slip movement. The third is the NS Baltim fault (Fig.9,13) trend which
is thought to be formed by rejuvenation and reactivation of the older pre-Tertiary structure
during the early Miocene (Abdel Aal et al., 1994)¶¶
The main structural elements and the geology of the Northern Egypt can be summarized as
the follows according to (Said, 1962; Abdel Aaal, 1994 and Moustafa, 1995):
3.3. a. Northern Egypt fold-fault Belt

The North Egypt fold-fault includes NE-SW oriented folds that affect the Mesozoic
and older rocks in north Egypt. These folds are well exposed in the north Sinai (Moustafa
and Khalil, 1989) as well as the northern parts of the Eastern and Western Desert. This belt
comprises:
i-The North Sinai folds and associated faults

This belt is described in detail in Moustafa and Khalil, 1989, 1990; Abdel Aal, 1992.
The belt is oriented NE-SW doubly plunging fold and is well exposed in north Sinai (Fig.
10). The right lateral reverse diagonal slip faults are parallel or sub-parallel to the folds of
30
the north Sinai. These folds extend eastward to the Dead Sea fault with the gradual rotation
of their axes toward the northeast. The North Sinai fold belt is bounded on the south by the
Tih plateau, where flat-lying upper Senonian to Middle Eocene rocks crop out.
Fig. 10: Tectonic geological map of Sinai constructed based on Egyptian geology map
EMRA (2008) using ArcGIS map version 10.2 Software.
31
ii - Faults and folds in the north Western Desert
The Western Desert stretches from the Nile valley border to the Libyan border and
southwards from the Mediterranean coast to the Sudanese border. The main tectonic trends
affecting the northwestern Desert are E-W (or Tethyan a major one), NE-SW and NW-SW
(Meshref, 1990).
The North Sinai type folding affects the Cretaceous formation in the northern and
western Desert. The Bahariya and Abu Roash anticlines in the western Dessert, are bordered
by NE-SW normal faults as a typical structure of the Upper Cretaceous through the late
Eocene Syrian Arc belt (Said, 1962) and further dissected by mostly E-W faults. The El-
Fayum, Wadi El-Natrun, Qattara and Siwa depressions, the existing folds that were
intersected by NW-SE and E-W faults causing the removal of the loose section of Holocene
and the Miocene fractured limestone, then the excavation of the Oligocene shales
constituting low parts (Oases or depressions) through the karstification phenomenon.
The Alamein fault lies at 65 km to the south of El Alamein village. It is one of the
faults that was splayed from the east-west oriented faults that extend from Wadi El Natrun
area to the western end of Qattara Depression. The fault bounds the northern side of a
relatively high plateau lying south of El Hamra Oil Field, while Razzak Oil Field lies on the
top of the plateau. To the south, El Alamein fault has two segments: the first is the NW
segment while the second one is longest and has the WNW trend (Fig. 11). The two
segments have a total length of 58 km. The footwall of this fault is built up of the Moghra
formation which is free of faults, whereas its hanging wall is mainly made up of the Moghra
beds as well as some of the Marmarica Limestone that forms several scattered tableland
formations. The Pliocene beds cap the upper surfaces of the Moghra Formation in several
parts.
According to Abd-Allah (2009), the maximum displacement south of the Alamein

fault is 72 m which measured at its middle part of the west-northwest segment. The
displacement decreases toward the northwest segment to become zero at its southeastern
end. Both segments of this fault have high angle (71° to 80°) fault planes with rakes 83°
measured from slickenside striations. In some places, the fault consists of several planes that
are separated by very small distances and bind together to form a fault zone.
3.3. b. The northeast Desert (Cairo±Suez area)

The Cairo-Suez area is located in the northern part of the Eastern Desert of Egypt
and extends from the northern end of the Suez rift to the Nile valley. The Cairo-Suez area is
affected by late Oligocene±early Miocene deformation related to the opening of the Suez
rift. As shown in the tectonic geological map (Fig. 12), this deformation is responsible for
32
the E-W and NW-SE oriented normal faults (Said 1962; Abd-Allah,1992) associated with
gentle folds affecting the upper Eocene and Miocene strata.
The south Cairo- Suez area is characterized by six slightly tilted fault blocks that
affected the Middle Eocene formation. These blocks are Gebel Ataqa, Gebel Akheider,
Gebel El Ramilya, Gebel Abu Trefia, Gebel Abu Shama, and Gebel Mokattam blocks.
Fig. 11: Tectonic geology map of the northwestern Desert constructed based on Egyptian
(geological survey EMRA, 2008) using ArcGIS map version 10.2 Software.
33
Fig. 12: Tectonic geological map of Cairo±Suez zone based on compiled structures elements
from (Abdel Aal et al., 1994; geology map EMRA, 2008) using ArcGIS map version 10.2
Software.
3.3. c. The Nile Delta

The Nile Delta area is totally covered by the Quaternary deposits consisting of Nile
silt, clay, sandy clay, sand, and gravel (Fig. 13). The Quaternary sediments in the Nile Delta
have been classified into two rock units: a) Mit Ghamr formation (Baltim formation), which
is overlain by the Bilqas formation (Rizzini et al., 1978); and b) Mit Ghamer formation
composed of thick layers of quartzitic sand and pebbles that belongs to the Early to Middle
Pleistocene and overlies the late Pliocene clay of the El- Wastani formation (Said, 1962).
The thickness of Mit Ghamr formation (pre-Nile sediments) ranges from 250 m near Cairo
34
to more than 1000 m north of the Nile Delta. The Bilqas formation is composed of medium
to fine-grained sand, silt, clays and peats (New-Nile sediments; Said, 1962).
The Neogene history of the Nile Delta area is much better known than the history of
the older units. Two major unconformities of regional extent subdivide the Miocene and
Pliocene intervals. A thick sequence of Miocene fluviomarine and shallow marine deposits
is present in the northern portion of the Nile Delta basin. The thickness exceeds 2000 m near
the coast but decreases rapidly southward (Said, 1962).
The Pliocene-Quaternary sediments uncomfortably overlay the Eocene-Miocene

rocks throughout the Nile Delta and Valley. Generally, these sediments are composed of
fluvial sands and clays with several gravel lenses. The surface agricultural clay layer caps
these sediments inside the Nile Delta and Valley with variable thicknesses and alluvial ±
fluvial lithology (Said, 1962). This layer has a thickness varying from less than 10 m to
more than 28 m inside the Nile Valley and is more than 70 m thick in the Nile Delta. Also,
the sandy to silty clay lithology of this layer in the Nile Valley changes into pure clay
lithology mainly to the North of the Nile Delta. The Quaternary sediments in the Nile Delta
increase in thickness northward, from about 100 m to more than 900 m in the offshore part
of the delta forming the Nile cone (Said, 1962). The agricultural layer also increases to the
north and shows interfingering features with the underlying sand body.
The tectonic history of northern Egypt from the Mesozoic through to the Tertiary had
a significant effect on the formation of the Nile Delta. The seismic reflection profiles (from
oil field data), reflected six major structural trends which delineate the present Nile Delta
(Abdel Aal et al., 1994). These trends have developed during the three main phases of the
tectonic history of northern Egypt and described above (Figs. 9 and 13).
1) East-West Neogene Hinge Line.

2) Northeast-trending Rosetta fault trend.
3) Northwest-trending Temsah structural trend.
4) Northwest-trending Red Sea-Gulf of Suez fault trend.
5) Northeast trending Pelusium megashear structural trend.
6) North-South Baltim fault trend.
These structural trends are schematically represented in Fig. 13.
35
Fig. 13: Tectonic geological map of Nile Delta based on compiled structures from (Abdel
Aal et al. 1994; geologic map EMRA, 2008) using ArcGIS map version 10.2.
3.3.d. The Suez Rift

The Suez Rift is located between Sinai and the northern part of the Eastern Desert
(Fig. 10). This rift basin has a width of about 50-90 km and length of about 350 km and is
occupied by the Gulf of Suez in the middle part. This has been traditionally referred to as the
µ¶&O\VPLF¶¶ULIWDIWHUWKHDQFLHQW5RPDQVHWWOHPHQWRI&O\VPDWKDWRFFXSLHGWKHSUHVHQWFLW\
of Suez (Robson, 1971). The Suez rift is dominated by NW-SE oriented normal faults and
tilted fault blocks. The opening of the Suez rift resulted from the extension between the
African and Arabian plates, leading to separation of the Arabian plate in the late Oligocene
or Early Miocene (Moustafa, 1993). The dip direction of the tilted blocks of the Suez rift
changes from N-S to SW-NE and back to SE and implies the formation of three distinct
36
provinces. These dip provinces represent three half grabens of opposite tilt directions
(Moustafa, 1993), separated by two accumulation zones. The Suez rift faults extend into the
Cairo-Suez fault systems but with smaller amounts of throw (Moustafa and Abd Allah
1992).
3.3.e -The Dead Sea fault and Gulf of Aqaba fault system
The Dead Sea Fault (DSF, Fig. 14) is a boundary between the Sinai microplate and
the northwestern part of the Arabian plate (Garfunkal et al., 1981). It consists of a narrow
belt of NNE oriented, left lateral strike-slip faults which include the Gulf of Aqaba, the
Dead Sea, and Lake Tiberias (Youssef, 1968). The Dead Sea deformation zone along the
Dead Sea fault is about 45 km wide, while the DSF extends for about 1000 km from the
Gulf of Aqaba to the Antachia triple junction (south Turkey; Mahmoud et al., 2013).
In the Sinai region, the Gulf of Aqaba constitutes the eastern branch of the Red Sea,
which is about 180 km long and 25 km wide, south of the DSF or Levant fault (Hartman,
2014). The Gulf of Aqaba appears as a succession of pull-apart basins bounded to the east
by the Hejaz Mountains (Saudi Arabia) and to the west by the Sinai Mountains (Egypt),
which shows a large inherited system of faults mostly parallel to the Gulf (Frieslander 2000;
Ten Brink et al. 2007).
The pull-apart tectonic model of Fig. 31 a, and b; Hartman et al., 2014 shows that the
Gulf of Aqaba has dominant left lateral strike-slip motion along the main faults parallel to
the main axis of the Gulf, and normal slip along the traversing faults. From north to south,
the Gulf includes the Eilat, Aragonese and the Dakar basins, respectively. These
observations are results from the geological evidence and seismic reflections study of
(Hartman et al., 2014).
37
Fig. 14 : (a) Generalized tectonic settings of the Aqaba by Hertman (2014). The Evrona and
Timna basins are mapped from bathymetric, gravimetric and magnetic data (Frieslander,
2000; Ten Brink et al. 2007). (b) Schematic models of the deep section of the basins (Ben
Avraham, 1985; Ten Brink et al. 1999).
3.4. Seismicity and active tectonic zones
3.4.1. Historical earthquakes

The historical earthquakes in northeast Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean, which
occurred in the period from 2200 BC till 1899 AD are compiled by Maamoun et al.(1984)
and Ambraseys et al. (2005). We have analyzed the seismological literature, which covers
about four thousand years of seismic history of northern Egypt and the eastern basin of the
Mediterranean, through the catalogues of (Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005; Guidoboni et al.,
2009 and Ambraseys, 2009).
Catalogues of (Maamoun et al., 1984; Ambraseys, 2005) are also based on the Al-
Suyuti (1445 ± 1511) work titled "Kashf El-Salsala and wasf El-Zalzala ³the sequential
discovery from the description of earthquakes´FRQWDLQVDOLVWRIHDUWKTXDNHV
38
between 712 AD and 1499 AD (translated into English by Springer in 1843 from the Arabic
manuscript of the National Library of Paris).
From the historical documents dealing with earthquakes, it can be concluded that
Egypt is one of the few regions of the world where evidence of historical earthquake activity
has been recorded during the past 4200 years. Most of this information about historical
earthquakes that have been felt in Egypt was collected from the annals of ancient Egyptian
history, Arabic and European literature culturally flourishing (Badway et al., 1999).
Therefore, the nature and type of the documentary sources in which its history was
preserved are essential.
The historical earthquakes of Egypt were collected during the period from 2200 BC
to 1899 AD (Fig. 15 and see the Table 13 of the historical earthquakes in Appendix A). The
most significant earthquake damage in the Eastern Mediterranean and in northern Egypt are
described briefly in the following lines:
A - 320 AD event
The epicentre is located in the Egyptian continental margin as shown in Fig. 15. It is,
therefore, more likely that it is coming from an offshore earthquake near Alexandria. The
320 AD event damaged many houses in Alexandria and many people were injured
(Ambraseys et al., 1994).
B - 956 AD event
The event was felt with maximum intensity of VI based on the MSK scale in
Alexandria city and caused the collapse of the upper 22-meter part of the lighthouse
(Ambraseys et al., 2005). The 320 and 956 events occurred north of the epicentre of the
September 12, 1955 (Ms = 6.8) earthquake. There are large events that cannot be
distinguished clearly in the period before 1900 due to the variability in the felt effects from
event to event.
C - The 21 July 365 event

The quake was located west of Crete at the plate boundary of the Hellenic Arc and
quickly sent a wall of water across the Mediterranean Sea toward the Egyptian Coast (Fig.
15,Ambraseys et al.,2005; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Stiros, 2001; Shaw et al., 2008).The 365
$'HYHQWLVTXDOLILHGDVD³JUHDW´HDUWKTXDNHZLWKPDJQLWXGH0!DVPDQLIHVWHGE\XSWR
9 m uplift in western Crete. It was probably responsible for the reported or observed
destruction in ancient towns of West Cyprus and Libya. Historical and archaeological data
39
also support the hypothesis that the fourth to the sixth centuries AD was a period of
clustering seismicity in the Eastern Mediterranean region (Pirazzoli et al., 1996).
The fact that the AD 365 coseismic uplift occurred in a single movement suggests
the occurrence of an extensive seismic sea wave that can be modelled according to the
inferred fault parameters (Stiros and Drakos, 2006; Shaw et al., 2008). On the Nile Delta,
the sea wave caused temporary changes in the coastline, and in the region of Al- Manazala,
east of Nile Delta between Damietta and Port Said, the previously rich land became a desert,
presumably due to flooding (Ambraseys, 2009).
D - The 8 August 1303 event

The epicenter of the 8 August 1303 event is located in the Eastern part of the
Hellenic arc as shown in (Fig. 15, Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005; Ambraseys, 2009).
According to Ambraseys (2009), this major earthquake caused serious damage in Crete,
Rhodes, including other eastern Mediterranean coastlines in Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt.
In Egypt, the damage occurred at Abyar, Damanhur, al Wahsh and Sakha in the
Nile Delta; in Alexandria, part of the city walls collapsed and the famous light houses were
destroyed (Abu-El Fida, 1329). In southern Egypt, houses collapsed at Al-Minya (historical
reports in Ambraseys et al. (2009)). In Cairo (which is ~150 km south of the Mediterranean
coastline), ground movements were slow (probably due to surface waves), making it
difficult for people to walk, while those on horseback were thrown down (historical reports
in Ambraseys et al.(2009)).
Many houses suffered some damage and local contemporaneous witnesses report
that the earthquake caused panic and women ran into streets without their veils (Ambraseys,
2009). Streets littered with fallen parapets and free standings walls slowed down the
evacuation of the city, whose inhabitants encamped that night outside Cairo. The mosques
of Al-Azhar, Al-Hakim and Amr Ibn-al-Ass at Fustat partly collapsed and had to be pulled
down and rebuilt.
E - The 24 June 1870 event

Three shocks were noted in Alexandria at 18 h 25 which seemed to be directed from
south-east to northwest and were accompanied by a hollow rumble (Soloviev et al.,
2000).Three shocks, each about 5s long, were also felt in Ismailia at 18 h 25. These events
were also felt in Cairo approximately at 18 h 30. The first one was very weak and only a few
inhabitants noticed it. Two minutes later, a very strong shock occurred, and the third one
that caused panic, came immediately (few seconds) after. The two main shocks were also
felt in Beirut and Naplus at 18 h with an interval of 5 min and it was recorded in the earliest
40
recording at the Observatory of Naplus (Ambraseys, 2009); the second shock was stronger
than the first one. The second earthquake was felt in the vicinity of Beirut, in the town of
Zebdani and in the Anti-liban range at 18 h 15 m and on the eastern shore of the Red Sea
(Soloviev et al., 2000). The strong shocks were felt in the sea and in the ports and ships
sustained severe damage.
Fig. 15: Historical earthquakes in Eastern Mediterranean and North Egypt (see historical
earthquakes references Table 13 of the historical earthquakes in Appendix A).
3.4.2. Instrumental Seismicity

The seismicity of Egypt was studied by many authors e.g., (Sieberg, 1932; Ismail
1960; Gergawi and El Khashab, 1968; Maamoun et al. 1984; Kebeasy, 1990; Ambraseys et
41
al., 2005; Abou Elenean, 1997). In their studies, the seismotectonic characteristics were
addressed based on the regional geological structures and sometimes implying the dominant
tectonic stress.
In 1997, the Egyptian National Seismological Network (ENSN) project started to

cover all Egyptian territory (Fig. 16). The installation of new stations (ENSN) network has
significantly enhanced the old seismicity distribution of the Egyptian region and the Red
Sea.
The history of instrumental recording of earthquakes started in Egypt as early as

1899 at Helwan (Hlw) by an E-W component Milne Shaw seismograph. While another N-S
component of Milne ±Shaw and vertical component of Galitzin- Willip seismographs were
initiated in 1922 and 1923, respectively. In 1955, another set of short period Sprengnether
seismographs were also added. In May 1962, the system was replaced by the Benioff short
period and Sprengnether long period seismographs with the photographic recording system
and Helwan became one of the World Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN)
stations. In December 1972, a Japanese three-component short period component
seismograph system with analogue recording system was installed.
In 1975, another three permanent seismological stations with photographic recording

system were installed at Aswan, Abu Simbel and Mersa Matrouh. These stations have three
component short period seismometers. In 1990, a broadband station (KEG) was installed at
Kottamyia as a part of the Mednet project. In cooperation with the International Institute of
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (IISEE) of Japan, the National Research Institute
of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG) has installed a network of 10 telemetered seismic
stations, which was operational in August 1994 around the southern part of Gulf of Suez.
All these stations have the same seismograph system which consists of L4C (Mark ±
product) vertical component seismometer. Only one station of this network was equipped
with a horizontal component.
In 2008, NRIAG started the construction of strong motion network (Fig.16) along
the highly populated Nile Delta in the northern Egypt. These strong motion network reached
10 stations with the end of 2016.
42
Fig. 16: The Egyptian National Seismological Network (ENSN) and the Nile Delta strong
motion stations in Egypt
In our work, the most significant earthquakes which sometimes caused damage in
the Eastern Mediterranean region and northern Egypt are taken into consideration. The
seismicity data for the period from 1970 to 2016 (Fig. 17) was obtained from the IRIS
bulletin. The seismicity of this region was not complete before the installation of the ENSN
because there were only two permanent stations Helwan (HLW) and Kottamyiabroad band
Station (KEG) that have been installed close to our study area.
43
The most recent instrumentally recorded earthquakes with severe damage in northern Egypt
are described briefly as follows Table 2; Maamoun et al. (1984); Hussein (1989):
Table 2: The earthquakes parameters and stress axes of the significant earthquakes in
northern Egypt.
No Location (º) Depth Mag.

Date Time P axis T axis References
. Lat. Long. (Km) (Mb)
a 12/09/1955 06:09:24 32.20 29.60 33 6.7 346 06 251 32 Hussein (1989)
b 31/03/1969 07:15:54 27.61 33.91 6.2 6.1 019 82 203 08 Hussein (1989)
c 12/10/1992 13:09:55 29.76 31.14 22 5.8 175 61 293 49 CMT
d 22/11/1995 04:15:11 28.76 34.66 9.0 7.3 159 31 062 12 CMT
e 28/05/1998 18:33:28 31.45 27.64 10 5.5 67 43 243 47 Huessein (2008)
a-The September 12, 1955, Alexandria earthquake (Ms = 6.7)

It occurred offshore in the Egyptian continental margin at 06:09 (GMT). It was
strongly felt in Egypt and causing large amounts of damage between Alexandria and Nile
Delta. The epicenter was located about 120 km NW of Alexandria (Maamoun et al., 1984).
Eighteen people were killed, 89 injured, 40 houses collapsed completely and 420 houses
ruined.
b-The March 31, 1969, Shadwan Earthquake (Mb = 6.1)

It occurred in Shadwan Island, the Red Sea at 07:15 (GMT) with Ms= 6.8 (Abu
Elenean, 2007). The effect of this earthquake on the island caused fissures and cracks in the
area south of Shadwan and extend a few kilometres towards the North (Saker et al.,
2011).The main direction of this fault is an NW-SE direction, the same orientation of the
Gulf of Suez. The coral reefs in the Red Sea appeared a few meters above the sea level after
the earthquake, probably due to the uplifted sea floor. In Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada
cities, people ran outdoors, although had difficulty balancing and some mud brick houses
were damaged in Ras Ghareb city (130 km north of Shadwan Islands). In the Nile Delta
area, the event was very slightly felt at Kefrel Sheikh, Dakhalyia, Domiatta, Alexandria and
the effects were stronger in the upper stories of the building (Maamoun et al., 1984).
c-The October 12, 1992, Cairo (Dahshour) earthquake (Mb = 5.8)

The earthquake epicenter was located at coordinates of 29.75°N and 31.13°E, at the
outskirts of Dahshour village (SW Cairo, Fig. 17). The event affected Cairo and the northern
part of the Nile Valley and caused much damage. Being close to the Cairo urban area, this
44
earthquake was one of the single most expensive natural disasters in the history of Egypt. It
was felt all over Egypt from Alexandria to Aswan (Hussein et al.,1996); also discussed by
Abd El-Aal.(2008). It was estimated that about 8300 dwellings were destroyed, 561 people
were killed, and 6500 were injured. An official investigation revealed that 1343 schools
were damaged beyond any repair, 2544 need major repair and 2248 need maintenance-type
repairs (Khater, 1992; Thenhaus et al. 1993).
Tectonically, the faults of this area are trending E-W to NW-SE parallel to the
Tethyan trend, or NW-SE parallel to the Gulf of Suez trend (Mesherf, 1990). The NW-SE to
E-W structures are in agreement with the coseismic surface features and related liquefaction
features observed near the earthquake epicenter and mainly in the late Quaternary alluvial
Nile deposits.
d- The November 22, 1995, Gulf of Aqaba earthquake (Ms = 7.2)

It occurred in the Gulf of Aqaba and at least 8 people were killed and 30 were
injured in the epicenter area. The earthquake occurred along the Dead Sea transform (DST)
fault system; the epicenter was located 60 km south of the Gulf of Aqaba. The heaviest
damage occurred in the town of Eilat where seven hotels and 50 buildings were damaged. In
Saudi Arabia, two people died and five others died in Egypt, three of them in the town of
Nuweiba.
3.4.3. Active tectonic zones

Many attempts were made to partition Egypt into different seismotectonic zones and
structural trends (Youssef, 1968; Maamoun and Ibrahim, 1978; Ibrahim and Marzouk, 1979;
Maamoun et al. 1984; Kebeasy et al. 1987; Kebeasy, 1990; Abu Elenean, 1997). The layout
of these studies is made on basis of all available geology, geomorphology, geophysical,
tectonic history, tectonic structures and seismicity.
In this study and on the basis of instrumental and historical earthquake catalogue,
surface faults, tectonic and geological setting, and earthquake focal mechanisms of northeast
Egypt, Six seismotectonic (Fig. 17) zones are recognized in northern Egypt:
a- The Egyptian continental margin (Trend A and B)

b- The Dahashour zone
c- The Cairo-Suez zone
d- The Northern Gulf of Suez zone
e- The Southern Gulf of Suez zone
f- The Gulf of Aqaba zone (subzones F and G)
45
Fig. 17: The seismicity LQ QRUWK (J\SW 0DJ DQG (DVWHUQ 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ UHJLRQ
0DJ FRQVWUXFWHG EDVHG RQ 15,$* DQG ,5,6 EXOOHWLQV 7KH DFWLYH ]RQHV LQ WKH
northern Egypt based on the (Abu Elenean, 1997) and this study: a) Egyptian continental
margin, b) Dahashour zone, c) Cairo-Suez zone, d) Northern Gulf of Suez, e) Southern Gulf
of Suez, and f) Gulf of Aqaba.
3.5. Focal mechanisms data

Earthquake source mechanisms are of prime importance in monitoring local,
regional and global seismicity.
Our work was carried out by collecting all focal mechanisms of earthquakes that
occurred in active tectonics zones in and around northern Egypt from 1951 to 2016. We
constructed a comprehensive catalog for the focal mechanism solutions, including the data
46
published in different journals for the Egyptian territory which cover the period from 1951
until the end of 2016 of magnitude ML IRU ORFDO HDUWKTXDNHV DQG 0L IRU WKH
continental margin (see Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 in Appendix A). The results are the focal
mechanism solutions based on the polarity of the first P-wave motion e.g. (Maamoun, 1976;
Hussein, 1989 & 1999; Megahed and Dessokey, 1988; Badawy and Horvath, 1999; Abdel
Fattah, 1999; Abou Elenean, 1997; Hussein and Korrat, 2001; Salamon et al., 2003;
Hofstetter et al., 2003; Abou Elenean et al. 2004; Egyptian National Seismological Network
(ENSN), 1998±2004) and solutions based on the waveform inversion (Hussein, 1999; Abou
Elenean et al. 2004; Abdel Fattah et al., 2006).
In addition to the available first motion solutions, the solutions of the global
catalogues of CMT Harvard and the National Earthquake Information Center NEIC, as well
as the regional CMT catalogues (RCMT) in the Mediterranean Sea region, are also
collected. These catalogues include the European Mediterranean Net (Med Net) of the
National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology of Rome, ZUR-RMT of the Institute of
Technology of Zurich (ETHZ), German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ).
In the following paragraphs, I will present and discuss the focal mechanisms
solutions and fault trending in the active tectonic zones of Egypt which include the Egyptian
continental margin, Dahshour zone, and Cairo-Suez area, Northern Gulf of Suez, South Gulf
of Suez, and Gulf of Aqaba.
3.5. a. Egyptian continental margin

19 focal mechanisms solution of magnitude ML IURP SUHYLRXV works were
collected (Fig. 18, see references to the focal mechanism data Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix
A). The results from focal mechanisms show two types of tectonic regimes: the first group
of mechanisms is represented by NW Oblique (normal±dextral) faults (blue beach ball); and
the second is compressive, represented by E-W to ENE (reverse±sinistral) faults (red beach
ball).
The largest event occurred in the Egyptian continental margin on September 12,
1955, with Ms 6.7 (Costantinescu et al., 1966) in the continental shelf of the Nile Delta. This
event indicates a strike-slip faulting mechanism with a considerable reverse component
along an NE-SW or ESE-WNW striking plane (Korrat et al., 2005). The ESE-WNW striking
plane yields a right-lateral motion whereas the NE-SW fault plane indicates left-lateral
offset.
The October 19, 2012 event occurred at 03:35:11.2, (GMT) with Mb 5.1 according
to the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) and represents the second largest
47
offshore significant seismic event that occurred within 57 years in the continental margin of
the Nile delta.
In front of the Nile Delta, the continental slope shows a fairly well-developed
stratification with many closely spaced normal faults. In principle, the continental margin
can be considered a zone of weakness which experienced thinning of the crust during the
Triassic period (Sofratome, 1984). This zone of transition between the faulted continental
crusts and oceanic domain might be predestined by its orientation to be reactivated with
dextral strike-slip and reverse components (Sofratome, 1984).
Fig. 18: Focal mechanisms of 19 events with ML DW WKH FRQWLQHQWDO PDUJLQ VHH
reference Tables 1 and 2 of focal mechanism solutions in Appendix A).
3.5.b. Dahshour zone

This zone is located in the northern part of the Western Desert and in the west of the
Cairo ± Suez zone.
The epicenter of 19 collected focal solutions with ML DUH REWDLQHG IURP
previous work (Fig. 19; see Appendix A, Tables 3 and 4) which are situated at the unstable
shelf (Said, 1962) underlain by high basement relief due to block fault and effect of minor
48
compressional folding. The largest event in the Dahshour zone with ML5.9 is the famous
October 10, 2017event: black beach ball in Fig. 19. This event shows normal faulting
mechanisms and its nodal planes trending NW-SE with some strike-slip component
(Maamoun et al.,1993; Hussein, 1999).
Most studied events indicate normal faulting with two nodal planes E-W to WNW-
WSE in agreement with normal faults observed in the tectonic and geological map as shown
in Fig. 11.
Fig. 19: Focal mechanisms of 19 earthquakes ML DWWKH'DKVKRXUDUHDVHHUHIHUHQFH

Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix A).
3.5.c. Cairo ±Suez zone

Twelve focal solutions of earthquakes with ML ZHUHFROOHFWHGIURPSUHYLRXV
work (Fig. 20, see Appendix A Tables 5 and 6). This zone extends between the northern end
of Suez rift to the Nile Valley in the northern Eastern Desert. The structural framework is
49
dominated by two main sets of faults oriented E-W and NW that have the same age (see
tectonic and geological map Fig. 12).
The mechanisms of large two events of September 29,1984 and April 29, 1974, of
ML 4.6 in the Cairo shear zone show normal faulting with a strike-slip component along
nodal planes trending nearly E-W to NE-SE. Most of the mechanisms of other events show
mainly pure normal faults and oblique source of the normal component with E-W and
NWN-SES and NW-SE trends in accordance with to the general strike direction of exposed
faults.
Generally, these solutions confirm the suggestion of a reactivation of pre-existing E-

W and NW-SE faults due to a partial transfer of rifting deformation from the Red Sea ± Gulf
of Suez along these trends.
Fig. 20: Focal mechanisms of 12 earthquakes with ML PDJQLWXGHLQ&DLUR-Suez area

(see reference Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix A).
50
3.5.d. Northern Gulf of Suez zone
The Gulf of Suez is a Neogene continental rift which has evolved as one arm of the
Sinai triple junction together with the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. Although there are no
significant earthquakes in the northern Gulf of Suez, it can be considered as one of the
active seismic zones (Dagett et al., 1986). The 15 collected focal solutions of earthquakes
with ML LQWKHQRUWKHUQ*XOIRI6uez are shown in Fig. 21 (see Appendix A, Tables 9
and 10). These solutions are characterized by normal faulting mechanisms. The nodal planes
have directions close to NW-SE to NNW-SSE. The rest of solutions exhibit either oblique or
pure strike-slip motion. The sense of strike-slip component along the NW-SE trends were a
subject of debate among previous studies. Garfunkel and Bartov (1977) and Chenet et al.
(1985) supposed a left lateral movement while (Maamoun et al. 1980; Moustafa and Abd-
Allah, 1992; Moustafa, 2002) assumed a right lateral movement.
The interaction of the northern tip of the Red Sea - Suez rift with the Mediterranean
margin, suggests a high strength of oceanic lithosphere and the start of seafloor spreading
south of the Arabian plate in the Gulf of Aden, Moustafa and Abd-Allah 1992; Moustafa
and Khalil, 1994; Moustafa, 2002 attribute the northern termination of the Suez rift to the
transfer of slip into the E-W faults pre-rift (Suez-Cairo faults) in the northeastern Desert.
They also indicate an ending of the NNW-SSE faults along the western Sinai against the E-
W themed fault.
3.5.e. South Gulf of Suez zone

The largest two significant earthquakes of Shadwan Island occurred on March 31,
1969 (ML = 6.7) and June 28, 1972 (ML = 5.0) along the southern part of the Suez Gulf.
These solutions indicate normal faulting mechanisms with NW-SE with strike-slip
mechanism. Moustafa 2001 have identified some structural trends with a left lateral strike-
slip motion in the southern Gulf of Suez zone. The 29 collected focal solutions in the
southern Gulf of Suez of ML DUHVKRZQLQ)LJVHHAppendix A Tables 11 and 12).
The majority of solutions indicates predominate NW-SE trending normal faulting with
strike-slip. They reflect normal faulting mechanisms with some strike-slip component and their
nodal planes trending parallel to the main trend of the Gulf of Suez.
51
Fig. 21: Focal mechanisms of 15 earthquakes with ML magnitude in the northern of
Gulf of Suez (see reference Tables 9 and 10 in Appendix A for the focal mechanism
solutions).
52
Fig. 22: Focal mechanisms of 29 earthquakes ML magnitude in south Gulf of Suez (see
reference Tables 11 and 12 in Appendix A for focal mechanism solution).
53
3.5.f. Gulf of Aqaba
The Gulf of Aqaba is a source region of intense activity which forms the main
tectonic plate boundary between Africa (Sinai) and Arabia. The movement along this
transform boundary caused some significant historical and instrumental earthquakes
(Ambraseys, 2009). The largest recorded and strongest earthquake (Mw = 7.2; Hussein and
Abu Elenean 2008) in this region is that of November 22, 1995.
The CMT-Harvard fault plane solutions of the November 22, 1995 large event give
normal fault mechanism with a slight strike-slip component along the nodal planes trending
NNE to N-S and NW. The NNE to N-S nodal planes show slight left lateral component
appears to be consistent with the mechanisms of the two foreshocks of August 3, 1993: M L =
6 at 12:43 and ML = 5.7 at 16:33 respectively. These three large events are shown as black
beach balls in Fig. 23 (see Appendix A Tables 7 and 8). These mechanisms are consistent
with the extensional regime of rhomb-shape grabens within the Gulf, and with the NNE-
SSW trend of the aftershocks of the August 1993 earthquake (Abdel-Fattah et al., 2007).
The epicenters of 3IRFDOVROXWLRQVZLWK0/ REWDLQHGIURPSUHYLRXVVWXGLHV

(see reference Table 8 in Appendix A for the focal mechanisms solutions) are shown in Fig.
23 and reveals the distribution of previous fault plane solutions in the Gulf of Aqaba. They
reflect normal faulting with left-lateral strike-slip component or strike-slip fault with a minor
normal component, while some events reflect a normal faulting mechanism.Most of the
events show T-axes approximately in the ENE-WSW to E-W direction.
54
Fig. 23: Focal mechanisms of 36 earthquakes with ML magnitudes in Gulf of Aqaba
(see reference Table 8 in Appendix A for the focal mechanisms solutions)
55
3.6. Stress inversions
Many researchers have attempted to estimate regional stresses using a wide variety
of direct inversion, iterative and grid search methods adapted for the reconstruction of past
and present stresses from fault kinematics and/or earthquake focal mechanisms data e.g.
(Angelier, 1984; Reches 1987; Vasseur et al., 1983; Gephart and Forsyth 1984; Carey-
Gailhardis and Mercier, 1987).
In this study, the inversion method of Delvaux and Sperner,(2003) and Delvaux and
Barth, (2010) is used for evaluating the stress field parameters in northern Egypt, using focal
mechanisms of earthquakes collected from different sources as mentioned above. The
inversion of fault-slip data gives the four parameters of the reduced stress tensor: the
SULQFLSDO VWUHVV D[HV ıO PD[LPXP FRPSUHVVLRQ ı LQWHUPHGLDWH FRPSUHVVLRQ ı
PLQLPXPFRPSUHVVLRQ DQGWKH6WUHVV 5DWLR5 ı - ııO - ı7KHWZR DGditional
parameters of the full stress tensor are the ratio of extreme principal stress magnitudes
ııODQGWKHOLWKRVWDWLFORDGhowever, these two parameters cannot be determined from
fault data only.
We refer to Angelier (1989, 1991, 1994) for a detailed description of the principles
and procedures of fault-slip analysis and paleo-stress reconstruction using focal mechanism
data. In this work, we used the Stress Tensor inversion software, version 5.8.5 (Windows
version; last updated on July 27, 2016. It allows us not only to obtain the first estimation of
the principal stress axes orientations and also estimate the stress ratio R and stress regime
LQGH[ 5¶ IRU WKH IDXOW kinematics and to filter out the focal mechanisms that may not be
compatible with WKH VWUHVV WHQVRU 7KH DQJOH EHWZHHQ WKH FDOFXODWHG VKHDU VWUHVV Ĳ DQG WKH
slip vector d LVWKHILWDQJOHĮ
Thus, the corresponding misfit function to be minimized for each earthquake i is the
PLVILWDQJOHĮ
)L ĮL
Within the WinTensor software, we process the data using the Right Dihedron
PHWKRGDJUDSKLFDOPHWKRGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHUDQJHRISRVVLEOHıDQGıRULHQWDWLRQVZKLFK
are independent of the choice of the nodal plane (Angelier, 1984). The initial result is used
as a starting point for iWHUDWLYH JULG VHDUFK ³5RWDWLRQDO RSWLPL]DWLRQ SURFHGXUH XVLQJ WKH
misfit function F5 in the Tensor program.
In the following paragraphs, we will apply the stress inversions in the Egyptian
continental margin and northern Egypt seismic zones (summarized in Table 3) using Stress
Tensor inversion software (version 5.8.5).
56
3.6. a. The Egyptian continental margin (Zone A, trend A and B)
The Egyptian continental margin was classified into two types according to the
mechanisms revealed from the earthquake data. The first group of mechanisms is
represented by NW Oblique (normal±dextral) faults considered as Trend A and the second
group of mechanisms is compressive represented by E-W to ENE (reverse±left-lateral)
faults considered as Trend B.
Table 3: Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal mechanisms in this
study.
ı ı ı Įº
Seismic zone R Įº n/nt 5¶ Shmax.º Shminº
Az. Pl. Az. Pl. Az Pl. max
Continental
margin Zone A 74 168 13 313 09 45 0.79 18.4 33.4 14/18 0.67 136 39.2
Trend A
Continental
margin Zone A 10 67 04 336 79 255 0.12 6.1 20.8 8/16 2.12 79 165
Trend B
Dahshour Zone
67 125 23 292 05 24 0.83 18.3 22.4 24/34 0.69 114 N25E
B
Cairo- Suez
63 286 27 108 01 18 0.79 10.7 20.8 15/36 0.69 108 N18.7E
Zone C
North Gulf of
61 130 29 317 03 225 0.64 12 24.9 15/28 0.64 134 44
Suez Zone D
South Gulf of
77 97 11 311 07 219 0.68 11 23.8 24/56 0.51 128 27.8
Suez Zone E
Gulf of Aqaba
45 170 44 338 06 74 0.9 13.5 26.8 10/14 0.89 164 72.3
sub zone F
Gulf of Aqaba
09 212 09 336 14 68 0.89 11.4 38.6 24/54 0.98 161 59.3
sub zone G
N=is the number of data explained by stress tensor 5¶VWUHVVUHJLPHLQGH[ shmin. minimum shear
Nt the total population of fault solutions Shmax. maximum shear
Į : mean slip deviation for all focal mechanisms used Shmin. minmum shear
The stress tensor inversion is applied to 10 focal mechanisms events from Trend A
(Table 3, Fig. 24). The inversion in Trend A show normal faulting N39.2E with strike fault
component including the Rosetta trend and extend to Qattara- EL Alamein trend and the
value of stress regime index is 0.67. The data set of eight focal mechanisms events for
Trend B (Table 3, Fig. 25). Trend B show compressive with shmax. = 79º by trending NE-
SW reverse faulting and with stress regime index value = 2.12.
57
These data and results of Trend A and Trend B covered the stresses in the Rosetta
trend and reveal the stress distribution from Alexandria to El Alamein margin.
The Tamash and Baltim trend in the continental margin is characterized by low-level
seismicity data. There are two main Sh max orientations observed in oil wells above the
Messinian evaporates in both trends. The stress orientation of the continental margin in the
front of the Nile Delta observed from 11 wells (Tingay et al., 2011) indicates a dominate N-
S to NE-SW Sh max orientation and a secondary E-W to NW-SE orientation observed in six
wells in the central region. These trends are also observed in Fig. 32.
Fig. 24: Rotational optimization method of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal
mechanisms data at continental margin Zone A, Trend A (see Table 3).
mechanisms data at continental margin Zone A, Trend B (see Table 3).
58
3.6.b. The Dahshour Zone (Zone B)
This zone acts as the source of the October 12, 1992 (Mw = 5.8) event, the most
recent damaging earthquake in Egypt. This event provides key earthquake parameters for
the study of active tectonics in the Dahshour area (Hussein, 1999). Two main fault trends
WNW-ESE to E-W and NW-SE dominate in this area (Sehim et al., 1992; Mesherf 1990;
Maaamoun et al., 1993). The stress tensor inversions were applied to 17 focal mechanisms
of the Dahshour zone (Table 3, Fig. 26). The inversion of focal mechanisms in this zone
yields an extensive stress regime characterized by E-W and WNW-SES trending faults with
N25ºE Sh-PLQ 7KH VWUHVV UHJLPH LQGH[ 5¶ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK QRUPDO IDXOWLQJ
mechanism with a strike -slip component. The rotational optimization of actual faults shows
quality index A. These results agree with Hussein et al.(2013).
3.6. c. The Cairo Suez zone (Zone C)

The dominant structural trend in this zone consists of two main sets of faults oriented
E-W and NW with the same age (Said, 1962). The stress tensor inversions are applied to 18
focal mechanisms events for Cairo-Suez zone (Table 3, Fig. 27). The inversion of focal
mechanisms of the earthquakes in this zone yields a pure extensive stress regime
characterized by E-W and WNW-SES trending faults with N18.7ºE Sh-min. The stress
regime inde[ LV 5¶ UHSUHVHQWLQJ D QRUPDO IDXOW ZLWK a strike-slip mechanism
(extensional component). The Tensor solutions in this zone show quality index A.
mechanisms data at Dahshour Zone Zone B (see Table 3).
59
Fig.27: Rotational optimization method of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal
mechanisms data at Cairo-Suez zone, Zone C (see Table 3).
3.6.d.Northern Gulf of Suez zone (Zone D)

The stress tensor inversions were applied to 14 focal mechanisms events for the
northern Gulf of Suez (Table 3, Fig. 28). The inversion of focal mechanisms of earthquakes
in this zone yields extensive stress regime characterized by NW-SE to NNW-SSE trending
faults with N44ºE Sh-PLQ 7KH VWUHVV UHJLPH LQGH[ LV 5¶ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D QRUPDO
faulting and extensional regime, where the rotational optimization of the actual faults show
quality A stress tensor.
mechanisms data at Northern Gulf of Suez, Zone D (see Table 3).
60
3.6.e.South Gulf of Suez zone ( Zone E)
The stress tensor inversions were applied to 28 focal mechanisms of the south of the
Gulf of Suez zone (Table 3, Fig. 29). The inversion of focal mechanisms of earthquakes in
this zone yields pure extensive stress regime characterized by NW-SE trending faults with
N27.8ºE Sh-PLQ 7KH VWUHVV UHJLPH LQGH[ LV 5¶ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D SXUH H[WHQVLRQDO
regime, where the rotational optimization of actual faults shows quality A stress tensor.
Fig. 29: Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal mechanisms data at
Southern Gulf of Suez, Zone E (see Table 3).
3.5.5.e. Gulf of Aqaba subzone (subzone F)

The dominated structural trend in Gulf of Aqaba transform fault is a left-lateral strike
slip movement with major normal component Garfunkel et al., (1981). The main structural
trends of Gulf of Aqaba are N-S to NNE-SSW and NW-SE fault zone (Ben Avraham, 1985;
Abdel Fattah et al., 1997).
The stress tensor inversions were applied to seven focal mechanisms events for the
Gulf of Aqaba subzone F (Table 3, Fig. 30). This zone is located north of 29° latitude. The
inversion of focal mechanisms in this zone yields an extensional regime, with the stress
UHJLPH LQGH[ HTXDO WR 5¶ 0.89, N72.3ºE Sh-min and the rotational optimization of actual
fault shows Tensor quality index A.
3.6. f. Gulf of Aqaba subzone (subzone G)

This subzone is located to the south of 29° latitude, where the stress tensor
inversions are applied to 27 focal mechanisms of Gulf of Aqaba subzone G (Table 3, Fig.
61
31). The stress regime index is R¶=0.98, with N59.3°E Shmin. The inversion of focal
mechanisms of earthquakes in this zone yields a normal with a strike-slip regime with the
noticeable extensional regime. The rotational optimization of actual fault shows quality B
stress tensor.
Fig. 30 : Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal mechanisms data at
Gulf of Aqaba, subzone F (see Table 3).
Fig. 31: Parameters of the present day stress tensor deduced from focal mechanisms data at
Gulf of Aqaba, subzone G (see Table 3).
62
3.7. Stresses field pattern and GPS results
The present-day tectonics is related to the collision of the African and Eurasian
plates, in some regions with the Arabian- Eurasian convergence and displacement of the
Anatolian-Aegean sub-plate. The boundary between the African and the Anatolian-Aegean
sub-plate is delineated by the Hellenic arc, the Pliny ±Strabo trench, the Florence and
Cyprus trench in the west (Aksu et al., 2005). The subduction zone between Nubia and
Eurasia and activities along the Red Sea, Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba may control the
surface deformation in the north-eastern corner of the African continent.
Furthermore, the boundary between the Arabian plate and the Anatolian plate is
characterized by predominantly left-lateral strike-slip motion with contraction and
convergence and possibly in some regions a small amount of extension (Mahmoud et al.,
2013). These kinematic results explain the tectonic mechanisms linked with the present-day
westward motion and counter-clockwise rotation of the Anatolian plate (Reilinger et al.,
2006). The increasing rate of motion toward the Hellenic and Cyprus trenches, suggests to
us that the primary forces responsible for the westward motion of Anatolia, and perhaps a
counter-clockwise rotation of Arabia, are associated with slab rollback along the Hellenic
and Cyprus trenches (Reilinger et al., 2006). Counter-clockwise rotation of the Arabian
plate, with respect to the Anatolian block, may also be enhanced by slab pull from the NE-
directed subduction beneath the Makran and possibly the south Zagros (Bellahsen et al.,
2003). A direct corollary of this proposed dynamic hypothesis is that rifting in the Red Sea
and the Gulf of Aden is a response to plate motions induced by the active subduction. This
interpretation implies that continuing subduction of the African and Arabian oceanic
lithosphere (i.e., Neotethys), is driving the plate motions and interplate deformation
throughout the zone of interaction between the African, Arabian, and Eurasian plates.
Previous studies indicate the northward motion of northern Nubia with respect to
Eurasia by about 5mm/yr (McClusky et al., 2000; Reilinger et al., 2006). Mahmoud et
al.(2005) defined Sinai as a separate sub-SODWH ³sandwiched´ EHWZHHQ WKH $UDELDQ DQG
African plates. Mohamoud et al.,(2005) suggested that Sinai sub-plate bounded by the Gulf
of Aqaba±Dead Sea fault, Gulf of Suez and Cyprus Arc with a motion of 1.4 ± 08 mm/yr
northward and 0.4±0.8mm/yr eastward relative to the stable Nubia plate. Saleh and Becker,
(2015) used 16 permanent GPS stations in combination with 47 non-permanent stations
covering Egypt for the period 2006±2012. Their GPS results show relative motion between
Nubia and Eurasia of about 6.5±1 mm/yr which may increase toward the Hellenic trench,
8.2±0.8 mm/yr in Sinai Peninsula, 14.2±1.4 mm/yr in the north on the of the Arabian plate,
and 22.3±0.7mm/yr in eastern and central Anatolia.
63
The main differences between Reilinger et al., 2006 and Saleh and Becker 2015 that
the last estimated that the GPS results relative motion in Nubia was 6.5±1 mm/yr higher
than estimated by Reilinger et al., 2006 which is 5 mm/yr. Also, Saleh and Becker 2015
estimated the motion of Sinai plate with 8.2±0.8 mm/year as separate motion from Nubia
plate.
Recently, Pietrantonio et al., 2016 suggested that the Sinai moved in a

counterclockwise rotation with respect to Africa plate fixed with tangential velocities of ‫׽‬2
mm/yr. This proposed model predicts a small extension (from 0 to ‫׽‬2 mm/yr moving from
north to south) in the Gulf of Suez with left-lateral strike-slip motion along the Gulf margin
of ‫׽‬1 mm/yr. They estimated the strain rate field by velocity interpolation on a regular grid
equal to rate of 40-50×10-9/yr in the Sea, the Nile Delta region with the largest deformation
along the Dead Sea Transform fault, where the shear prevails with strain rate values up to
90×10-9/yr (Pietrantonio et al., 2016). The direction of the main strain rate axes is consistent
with the direction of the Red Sea opening and with the left-lateral shear zone along the Dead
Sea fault.
The stress results from this study in northern Egypt indicate that this tectonic domain
is under an extensional stress regime. This stress regime is presently dominating in most of
Egypt as normal with minor strike faults of extension trending N to NNE. The northern parts
of Egypt have been extensively explored for hydrocarbons, particularly in the Gulf of Suez,
Nile Delta (offshore and onshore), and the basins of western Desert. A small number of
exploratory wells have also been drilled in the Red Sea and southern Nile Valley. Therefore,
abundant material exists for the development of breakout and well-bore stress field studies.
Bosworth and Taviani, (1996) analyzed sub-Miocene salt breakouts in wells from the
southern Gulf of Suez and found a consistent N75°W orientation for SH (one small
DQRPDORXVDUHDZDVLGHQWLILHGDWa¶1¶(%DGDZ\Xsed additional wells
and came to a similar conclusion with SH N70°W, although his analysis of earthquakes gave
ENE-WSW SH with a fairly broad range of uncertainty. The breakout results are somewhat
surprising, as they indicate a propensity for nearly N-S shallow crustal extension highly
oblique to the axis of this rift. This is supported by the occurrence of several large recent
earthquakes in the southern Gulf of Suez that showed normal movement and NNE-SSW
striking T-axes. The breakout data from the southern Gulf of Suez suggest that the stress
field of Central Africa Intra Plate (the CAIP) extends from Congo to Sudan to north most
Egypt and Libya where the maximum horizontal stress is E-W and it is related to far effects
of ridge in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean (Bathworth 2008). The stress regime of CAIP is a
64
mixture of strike-slip and thrust faulting in the south and strike-slip and normal faulting in
the north.
Along the transition zone between the northern Egypt continental and oceanic crust,
the stress field changed from a dominate tension to a prevailing compression linked to the
N-S compression of the Mediterranean convergence zone as manifested in several studies
(Abou Elenean and Hussein, 2007; Bathworth, 2008). The Egyptian continental margin is
the zone of transition between the faulted continental crust that might be predetermined by
its orientation to be reactivated with dextral strike-slip and reverse components (Sofratome,
1984). The Cyprian and Hellenic arcs are dominated by compression, whereas to the east of
Cyprus, a left-lateral motion exists (Mahmoud et al., 2013). Bohnhoff et al. (2005)
performed a stress tensor inversion in the subduction Hellenic trench which indicated a
uniform N-NNE direction of relative plate motion between the Ionian Sea and Rhodes,
resulting in orthogonal convergence in the western forearc and oblique (40-50°) subduction
in the eastern forearc. There, the plate boundary migrates towards the SE, resulting in left-
lateral strike-slip faulting that extends to onshore Eastern Crete. Normal faulting, trending
N110°E, in the Aegean plate as back-arc structures are in agreement with this model (the
along-arc extension is observed on Western Crete). The fault plane solutions of earthquakes
within the dipping African lithosphere indicate that slab pull is the dominant force within the
subduction process and is interpreted to be responsible for the roll-back of the Hellenic
subduction zone.
Fig. 32 summarizes the stress distribution in northern Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean region obtained from the stress inversions of this study. In addition to the
stresses determined from the oilfield boreholes and the data of the World Stress Map
(http://www.world-stress-map.org/) and the GPS velocity vectors after (Reilinger et al.,
2006).
65
Fig. 32: Stress map of the North Egypt and Eastern Mediterranean region (this map is
constructed based on data from the calculated stress inversion in this study, tensor and world
stress data (http://www.world-stress-map.org/), Egyptian geological map (EMRA, 2008),
Reilinger et al. 2006, Saleh and Becker, 2015).
66
Chapter IV
Paleotsunami records in Northern Egypt
4.1. Introduction
The seismotectonic study of the Eastern Mediterranean and northern Egypt presented
in the previous chapter helps in the identification of the active seismic source of tsunami
events through the study of historical and instrumental seismicity and related tectonic zones.
ThHPDMRUVRXUFHRIODUJHHDUWKTXDNHVZLWK0LQWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQUHJLRQLVWKH+HOOHQLF
subduction zone ; that can be divided into the Eastern and Western segments. Large shallow
earthquakes associated with thrust faulting beneath the Hellenic trench can generate
tsunamis in this area.
The largest magnitude reported in earthquake catalogues for the Hellenic Arc is Mw
8.3 ± 8.5 and refers to the July 21, 365 earthquake(Stiros and Drakos, 2006; Shaw et al.,
2008). The hypocenter of this earthquake was probably located offshore of western Crete,
along with a major thrust fault parallel to the Western Hellenic trench. The earthquake
generated a large coseismic uplift and tsunami that was very likely destructive along the
western Crete coast and is known to have destroyed most of the harbours and the Nile Delta
area along the Egyptian coastline (Stiros, 2001; Stiros and Papageorgiou, 2001; Dominey
Howes, 2000; Papadopoulos et al., 2007). The second large paleotsunami event generated by
an earthquake source in the Eastern segment of the Hellenic Arc area is that of August 8,
1303, event. The estimated magnitude of this earthquake is 8.0 (Papazachos, 1996). The
Cyprian Arc is the third tsunamigenic source, which is the closest subduction zone to the
Egyptian-Mediterranean coast but is smaller and less active than the Hellenic Arc. The
largest magnitude reported in the earthquake catalogues for Cyprus is 7.5, from the May 11,
1222 earthquake.
The continental margin of Egypt is considered to have no potential for tsunamigenic
earthquakes. Large earthquakes (with M>6) or landslides that produce local tsunamis also
originate from time to time from the Egyptian coast, but no significant basin-wide tsunami is
known to have originated from this region. Although M 6.5 earthquakes such as the
offshore Ms 6.7 Alexandria earthquake on September 12, 1955, have already occurred in the
continental margin (Korrat et al., 2005). It was close to the sedimentary cone of the Nile that
poses the potential for tsunamis (Garziglia et al. 2008).
In this Chapter, I will present the significant historical tsunamis that affected
northern Egypt and the East Mediterranean region, the paleotsunami research study
conducted along the Egyptian coastline by means of trenching and coring at EL Alamein
67
and Kefr Saber sites. The study includes the description of cores and trenching at both sites,
the analysis and interpretation of geochemical and magnetic susceptibility measurements
with the chronology of events using C14 dating of the coastal sedimentary layers.
4.2. Historical paleotsunamis of northern Egypt:

Large earthquakes caused most of the historical tsunamis in the Mediterranean
region. Although, there is a low possibility of landslide tsunamis occurring offshore of the
Nile Delta due to the high slope of the continental margin. Yalciner, (2014) estimated a
landslide volume of 500 km3, which may trigger a tsunami with wave height ranging from
0.4 to 4 m, that would affect major cities of the northern coast of Egypt (Alexandria,
Damietta, Port Said). The recent example of landslide tsunamis in the Mediterranean was
associated with the eruption of Stromboli volcanic, December 30, 2002 (Tinti et al. 2005).
The preserved historical documents and archives are the principal sources of macro
seismic data for historical earthquakes and tsunamis. Since the beginning of the 20th
century, much effort has been undertaken towards the establishment of a reliable catalogue
of historical seismicity based on the retrieval and assessment of original sources of
information e.g. (Poirier & Taher, 1980 ;Maamoun, 1984 ; Soloviev et al. 2000 ;Ambraseys,
2009 ;Guidoboni, 2009).
Guidoboni (1994) and Ambraseys (2009) report several large earthquakes with
tsunamis that caused damage in the eastern Mediterranean region and in particular in the
coastal metropolises of Egypt (Table 4). Among these events, the tsunamis of 21 July 365, 8
August 1303 and 24 June 1870, local and contemporaneous reports describe wave heights
with inundations and severe damage to the city of Alexandria as well as the Mediterranean
coast of Greece, Sicily, Libya, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. The three events were
most likely triggered by major earthquakes in the Hellenic subduction zone (Papadopoulos
et al., 2014).
68
Table 4: Historical earthquakes and tsunamis effect on the north Egyptian coast
Date Epicentre Estimated Mag. Comment Reference
Santorini
~1410 B.C. volcanic - Inundation in Alexandria Cita et al. (1996)
eruption
Stiros and Drakos, (2006);
Western
21 July 365 Mw 8.3 ± 8.5 Tsunami northern Egypt Shaw et al. (2008)
Crete
18 January Dead Sea Tsunami eastern Sieberg, (1932)

7.5
746 Fault Mediterranean Ambraseys, (1962)
Tsunami in Alexandria &
881 - 882 Palestine ? Galanopoulos A., (1957)
Palestine
4 January Jordan
7.4 Tsunami northern Egypt Ambraseys, (1962)
1033 Valley Fault
18 January Northern Ambraseys, (1962),
6.9 Waves in northern Egypt
1068 Lebanon Soloviev et al.( 2000)
Abu al-Fida (1329),
8 August
Rhodos 8 >8-m Ambraseys (2009)
1303
Hamouda (2006)
24 June Inundation in Alexandria Ben-Menahem (1979) ;
Hellenic Arc ML 7.2
1870 harbour Soloviev et al. (2000)
The following is a short description of the three most significant tsunamis triggered by large
earthquakes that affected northern Egypt :
a-The 365 tsunamigenic event

Historian Ammianus Marcellinus in Guidoboni et al., (1994) a Roman historian who
lived in the fourth century (325±391 AD), reported the tsunami event 13 years after in 378
AD. He documented the devastating effects of the tsunami hitting Alexandria with
comments such as "7KH VROLGLW\ RI WKH HDUWK ZDV PDGH WR VKDNH«DQG WKH VHD ZDV GULYHQ
away´ ³The waters returning when least expected killed many thousands by drowning´
³KXJH VKLSV« perched RQ WKH URRIV RI KRXVHV« KXUOHG PLOHV IURP WKH VKRUH«¶¶ 2WKHU
settlements around the Mediterranean were hit at roughly the same time.
Reports indicate that ships in the harbour of Alexandria were overturned as the water
near the coast receded suddenly and that many people rushed out to loot the hapless ships.
The tsunami wave then rushed in and carried the ships over the sea walls, landing many on
69
top of buildings. In Alexandria, approximately 5,000 people lost their lives and 50,000
homes were destroyed. The surrounding villages and towns suffered even greater destruction
and many were virtually wiped off the map. Outside the city, 45,000 people were killed. In
addition, the inundation of salt water rendered farmland useless for years to come. Slowly,
but steadily, the buildings of Alexandria's Royal Quarter were overtaken by the sea
following the tsunami. It was not until 1995 that archaeologists discovered the ruins of the
old city off the coast of present-day Alexandria.
A review of historical accounts (Hamouda 2002 ; Ambraseys, 2009) of a notable
earthquake, such as that of 21 July AD 365 indicates that this event destroyed nearly all
towns in Crete and was followed by a tsunami, which had devastating effects on coastal
areas of the eastern Mediterranean.
The study of paleo-shorelines that fringes the coast of western Crete and
$QWLN\WKHUDILUVWGHVFULEHGE\&DSWDLQ6SUDWW51LQZKRQRWHGPDQ\µVHDPDUNV¶XS
to 10m above present sea level in southwest Crete. Because these marks run through the
remains of a Roman harbour at Phalasarna at 6m above sea level, he deduced that the land
must have been raised during or after the Roman era. Pirazzoli et al. (1992) showed that this
shoreline that extends in all western Crete had a C14 age of around 2,000 yr BP and
attributed its uplift to an earthquake; this earthquake was subsequently linked to the AD 365
event. Pirazzoli et al. (1992) also indicate the existence of small subsidence events in
between large uplifts.
Shaw et al., (2008), using radiocarbon dates, refer to the uplift of western Crete in
AD 365 but with an age uncertainty. The field observations also show slow uplift during
short intervals in a series of rapid small events. The authors inferred that either uplift of
western Crete and its surrounding sea floor took place slowly within a few decades of AD
365 and some other event caused the tsunami that destroyed Alexandria in AD 365, or the
two events are connected. Shaw et al., (2008) also model the tsunami wave propagation
across the eastern Mediterranean and infer the occurrence of 0.6 m wave heights reaching
the Egyptian coast.
b-The 1303 tsunamigenic event

On 8 August 1303, a major earthquake with magnitude ~Mw 8 occurred in between Crete
and Rhodos islands and generated a tsunami that greatly damaged the coastal cities of
eastern Mediterranean, in particular, the cities of Candia and Heraklion (Crete), and
Alexandria with the Nile delta was flooded (Ambraseys, 2009 ; Papadopoulos et al., 2014).
In Greece, it resulted in destruction in the islands of Rhodos, Crete and the Peloponnesus.
70
According to detailed contemporaneous reports, many houses were damaged in Cairo and
northern Egypt, ships were torn apart and many of them were carried inland due to tsunami
waves (the detailed description of this earthquake and its effect in Egypt is in the
contemporaneous Arabic source of Abu-El Fida born 1273 ± died 1331 (1329)).In
Alexandria, the sea spilt over into the harbour, inundating the shore, carrying sailing ships
and boats onto the land and with the fall of Alexandria lighthouse. Houses were ruined and
70 m of the city wall together with 27 towers were destroyed. However, Abu-El Fida report
that the worst damage was caused by the combination of the earthquake, the sea and high
winds, which drove ships onto the coast and demolished part of the ramparts, killing 46
people.
c- The 24 June 1870 tsunamigenic event:

A large earthquake was felt throughout the eastern Mediterranean followed by
tsunami waves on Alexandria. It is reported that the location of this earthquake is probably
either the Eastern Hellenic arc (i.e., the same location as of 8 August 1303 earthquake) or
the May 11, 1222 earthquake in the Cyprian Arc. In Alexandria, three successive shocks
were felt with no earthquake damage. Everyone along the coast of Nile Delta felt the
earthquake and it was reported from Port Said to Suez Canal. In the new Port area, the sea
flooded the quay and the shock was felt on board ships in both the old and new ports.
The strong shocks were felt in the sea and in the port where ships also underwent
severe shocks. The three shocks lasted for about 5s each were also felt in Ismailia at 18 h
25m, but they were very strong. The three shocks also occurred in Cairo at approximately 18
h 30 m. The water in the new port of Alexandria splashed out onto the quays.
4.3. Paleotsunami investigations

The paleotsunami investigations are classified into fieldwork and laboratory analysis.
Three successive field campaigns were carried out in June 2014, August 2015, and October
2015. The aim of these field investigations was to choose the best locations that triggered
tsunami deposits from geological and geomorphological evidence.
The work was carried out by trenching and coring in the two selected sites of Kefr
Saber (Marsah Matrouh) and El Alamein (Fig. 33) and the sampling collection includes
charcoal, gastropods, shells, roots samples in trenches and cores. In the laboratory, different
core analyses were undertaken including collecting samples for dating after opening the
cores, photography, detail stratigraphic descriptions, X-ray scanning, geochemical analysis,
Magnetic susceptibility (methods are described in detail in Chapter II).
71
Fig. 33: The location map of the studied areas in northern Egypt.
The following briefly describes the geomorphology features in the studied area
including the chosen investigation of two sites according to some geomorphologic paleo-
tsunami evidence and my field steps including coring and trenching and the laboratory
measurements and the core and trenching description :
4.3. a. Geomorphology features of the studied areas

From the structural geology and tectonic point of view, these areas are selected
according to the reasons developed in previous chapters and mainly on the seismotectonic
setting in northern Egypt and location of major tsunami sources. The two selected sites are
located along the Mediterranean coast and in the northwestern part of the Western Desert,
which consists mainly of a thin blanket of Miocene rocks forming a vast persistent limestone
plateau (Fig. 34). It extends from the western side of the Nile valley and delta in the east to
El-Salloum in the west and the Mediterranean coastal plain in the north to the Qattara and
Siwa depression in the south (El-Bastwasy, 2008). This area is affected structurally by E-W
to WNW-ESE trending faults associated with the Qattara ± Alamein ridge and in the north
with the NW-SE trending El Alamein faults.
The geomorphology and surface geology of the study areas is essentially dominated
by sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary ages. The Quaternary is exposed in coastal
72
plains, lagoons, wadis and raised beaches. The Pliocene and Miocene of the Tertiary are
exposed, for its major part, in the coastal platforms and tableland, with the Miocene
limestone forming the surface beds of the tableland. The geological units are characterized
by the presence of Tertiary Miocene, mainly composed of limestone and sandstone reaching
the shoreline in several areas. The coastal zone and related Miocene plateau are covered by
Quaternary deposits. These deposits are mainly represented by the Holocene units of coastal
sand dunes, lagoonal and alluvial deposits and the Pleistocene oolitic limestone ridges and
old lagoonal deposits. The Quaternary carbonate ridges in the present area are cemented into
moderately hard limestone, except for the coastal ridge which is mostly less cemented
Zahran, (2008).
The area includes a narrow coastal plain, followed by sand dunes in some areas to
the south. South of the dunes, the plain rises gradually until the altitude of the plateau
reaches 50 to 250 meters above sea level. The coastal plain stretches in a generally east-west
direction, bounded by the sea to the north and a pediment plain to the south. Controlled by
the geologic formations, the pediment plain width varies from some meters to about 10 km.
This plain mainly consists of alluvial fans, descending from the plateau, rivers (wadis)
extensions, rocky plains, salt lagoons (sabkhas), sand sheets and sand dunes. Besides the
aeolian sediments, other sediments were transported to form alluvial fans and floodplains,
and the subsoil layers are formed locally from marine limestone (El-Bastwasy, 2008). The
area is characterized by rich archaeological remains such as Ramses II (1303 ± 1213 BC)
temple ~20 km west of Marsa-Matrouh city.
The first field investigations were carried out in June 2014 along the north coast of
Egypt from Alexandria to Salloum border coast.
Several criteria were applied to select the sites, taking into account
geomorphological and topographic setting, accessibility in order to avoid urbanization and
artificial soil reworking. The criteria are 1) the presence of large boulders; 2) sand dunes;
and 3) Lagoons environment and salt marshes. Two sites, 160 km apart, met the selection
criteria for site investigation: 1) Kefr Saber, and 2) El Alamein site (Fig.33).
73
Fig. 34: The location and geomorphology landforms map in the studied area after Raslan
(1995).
The geomorphology of the area characterized by geomorphologic features include the
following :
a- Coastal dunes
The coastal dunes (Fig. 34, 35) are found close to the beach within synclinal areas;
they are well developed and recent ridges extended parallel to the present beaches. They are
composed of loose white oolitic carbonate sands washed from the degradation of oolitic
coastal ridges, almost the foreshore dunes are impeded by plants.The frontal dunes generally
extend as ridges parallel to the shoreline
b- Large boulders
The accumulation of large boulders (Figs. 36 and 37) noticed in this study have a N-S
trend near the shoreline of large width along the Egyptian coast. These large boulders are
related to probable tsunami origin from the Mediterranean.This accumlation of boulders are
noticed and studied by (Dalal et al., 2013; Shaha-Hosseini et al., 2016)
Shaha-Hosseini et al., (2016) studied the accumulation of boulders between Alexandria

and Mersa Matrouh along the Egyptian coast. They concluded that these boulders were
transported by a tsunami wave 2.6 m height or by storm waves about 10 m height. Their C14
dating of Dendropoma in boulders was compared with 8 August 1303 AD tsunami.
74
Fig. 35: Sand dunes along Mediterranean coast west Mersa Matrouh.
We have noticed that accumulation of boulders in the (Ras El Hekma ±Ras ELAlam Rum
±Mersa Matrouh - East Mersa Matrouh (Kefr Saber) during the fieldwork, however, it was
not possible to conduct detailed work during my study. These boulders reflect the force of
the waves responsible for transferring large blocks in the direction of the coast. Two
samples of Dendropoma species in the boulders were chosen in this study for dating in Kefr
Saber and Ras El Hekma (Table 1 in Appendix E).
Fig. 36: Large boulders in Kefr Saber.
75
Fig. 37: Large boulders in Ras EL Hekma.
c-Salt Marshes and lagoons

Salt marshes and lagoons are found between dissected ridges with a lower elevation
below sea level than West Matrouh are formed due to surface erosion by drainage lines.
Many lagoons and sabkhas are distributed along the North Western Coast at El Dabaa and
Ras El Hekma. This surface is mostly covered with carbonate dunes (Fig. 38).
Fig. 38: Show lagoons behind the sand dunes.
4.3.b. Cores and trenching

Coring and trenching act as effective tools which allow us to recognise paleo-
tsunami deposits and landforms, e.g. (De Martini et al., 2012 and Malik et al., 2015). In this
study, trenching and cores were undertaken within the two selected studied areas along the
76
northern coast of Egypt in Kefr Saber and EL Alamein sites. This was done in order to study
the sedimentary succession and to identify the possible tsunami deposits and correlate them
with historical tsunamis records.
Trenches, ~2 x 1 m and ~1.5 m deep, were dug in both selected sites. The
underground water infiltration was treated using a water pump (Fig. 39).The cores (Fig. 40
and Fig. 41) were collected in both sites using a Cobra digging instrument. The tube's has a
diameter of 2 inches and 1m long. The cores were taken up to depths of 2.6 m.
Fig. 39: Pumping machine to Fig. 40: Photo core dug using
discharge the underground water. Cobra instrument.
Fig. 41: The end of core tube.
4.3.c. Laboratory analysis

The cores were then opened (Fig. 42) with a Fisher wire in the Laboratory of the
National Institute of Geophysics and Astronomy (NRIAG), then labelled. The first half of
the cores have been named and archived, while the other part was used for measurements
and sampling.
X-ray radiographs were carried out on cores using medical X-ray scan laboratory
before they were opened to identify the details of sediments and microfossils. Very intensive
77
X-ray was used in order to penetrate the sediments to show the details in sediments. Three
40 cm-long x-ray pictures were taken for each 1 m long core with an overlap of least 5 cm.
The cores and trenches were described according to their length, colour, texture
(grain-size, sorting), sedimentary structures (natural or due to coring disturbances), type of
sedimentary contacts (sharp or gradient). The cores and trenches were then photographed
using DSLR (Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera) in 25 cm long sections, with an overlap of
at least 2 cm. These pictures were assembled together to reconstruct a single image for each
core section.
A number of different measurements were taken from the cores (Fig. 43); the
magnetic susceptibility was measured with 3 cm intervals along the cores using a Bartington
MS-2 system. Samples with a dimension of 2 cm long were collected every 15 cm for bulk
mineralogy, grain size, total organic and inorganic analysis which was carried out at the
laboratory of a central metallurgical research institute (CMRDI) in Helwan.
Fig. 42: The preparation of core.
Fig. 43: Sampling sketch of the split cores: a) the archive core part; b) the working core part;
and c) the measurement analysis each 2cm slices divided into 3 small part.
78
The radiocarbon dating of samples was carried out in three laboratories (Poznan
laboratory - Poland, CIRAM in Bordeaux, France and Beta Analytical Laboratory, USA) to
ensure consistent and high quality results (Table 1 and 2 in Appendix E). The collected
samples were made of charcoal, bones, gastropods, shells and organic matter. The
radiocarbon dating results of charcoal and organic matter were calibrated using a recent
calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2013) and Oxcal software for the probability density
function of each sample age with ı XQFHUWDLQW\ (Bronk-Ramsay, 2009); furthermore, the
gastropods and shells were corrected against reservoir effects.
4.3.d. Trenching and coring description in the investigated sites

In the following, a description for trenching and coring in the two selected areas of
Kefr Saber and El Alamein is presented, with the analysis procedures and interpretation
performed along the northern coast of Egypt.
i. Kefr Saber site

This site is located ~32km west of Marsa-Matruh city in an area characterized by a
lagoon depression protected from the sea by 2 to 20 m high sand dunes (Figs. 44 a, b and c).
The area also shows big rocky boulders rich in Dendropoma along the nearby shoreline that
testify for past tsunami deposits. Five trenches dug in June 2014 (Fig. 44 c). The trenches
were dug perpendicular to the E-W trending coast in a dry lagoon.
The sizes of trenches are ~2 x 1 m and ~1.5m deep. The trenches dug to figure out
the deposits and find the geological evidence for the tsunami deposits. The detailed
description and photography were done in the field (see Figs. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49).
Fig. 44: a) Coastal zone at Kefr Saber rich in boulders, b)Dendropoma fossils rich in the
boulders, and c)the location of the five trenches P1 to P5 at Kefr Saber.
79
The five trenches dug in Kefr Saber (Fig. 44c) were numbered according to the time
they were dug. The following is the description of tsunami layers found in trenches located
in Fig. 44 c:
Trench no.1
Located 152 m from the shoreline, this trench shows a succession of soft
sedimentary layers made of sandy-silt, sandy-clay and fine gravel layers. A layer of mixed
sand and gravel, and broken shells (Fig. 45) is found at 35 cm depth, but with a variable
thickness from 2 to 10 cm in trench walls. This layer is characterized by rich broken shell
fragments and is interpreted as of tsunami origin. Two samples of charcoal are chosen in
Trench 1 at Kefr Saber for dating (Table 1 in Appendix E). The first is of modern age at 35
cm depth. The other charcoal sample is at 53 cm depth and aged between 39000-38250 BC.
This sample is found below the stratigraphic tsunami layer. This sample is transported from
deepest sediments due to the high wave current tsunami.
Fig. 45: Description of trench no.1.The arrow reflects tsunami layer 1 which is rich in
broken shell fragments.
Trench no. 2
It is located at ~100 m distance from the shoreline. Three phases of flooding with
pebble and gravel deposits at 25, 40 and 100 cm depth were found on trench walls. The
reasons for the presence of the boulders may be related to tsunami or storm flooding. The
trench is closer to the shoreline with respect to Trench 1. The same layer at Trench 1of
80
mixed sand and gravel and broken shells continued in Trench 2. It was found at 24 cm with
a 16 cm thick layer of white sandy reworked and broken shell fragments (Fig. 46).
Trench no.3
It is located at 177 m from the shoreline. The same layer at Trench 1of mixed sand
and gravel and broken shells extend into Trench 2 and Trench 3. It occurred at a depth of 44
cm (Fig. 47) in Trench 3 with a 6 cm thick layer of highly reworked fossils and broken shell
fragments. The bottom of this trench is also characterized by white sand mixed with clay
and marine sea water.
Two charcoal samples are chosen at depths 73 and 100 cm in Trench 3 at Kefr Saber for
dating. The first charcoal sample is at 73 cm depth and has a date of 50-70 AD. This sample
is below the tsunami layer 1 (Table 1 in Appendix E). The other charcoal sample is at 100
cm depth and has a date of 5300-5070 BC. This sample is transported from deepest
sediments due to the high wave current tsunami.
broken shell fragments.
81
broken shells fragments.
Trench no.4
This trench is located at 210 m from the shoreline. The same layer at Trench 1 of
mixed sand and gravel mixed with broken extends into Trench 2, Trench 3 and Trench 4.
This layer is found at 55 cm depth in Trench 4 (Fig. 48) with lateral variation from 1 to 5 cm
in thickness and is characterized by reworked shells and gastropods.
Five charcoal samples are chosen for dating in Trench 4. The first sample is at 15 cm
depth and is from the modern age. The second sample is at 20 cm depth and has a date of
1700- 1920 AD. The charcoal at 40 and 61 cm depth have a modern age and may be
transported from shallow to deep depth due to a contamination of farming in this area. The
last charcoal sample is at 60 cm depth and has a calibrated age of 17200- 15900 BC (Table 1
in Appendix E). These samples are located within the tsunami deposits in Trench 4 and are
transported from deepest sediments of high energy current waves during the tsunami of 21
July 365.
Trench no.5
This trench is located at 72 m from the shoreline is the closest to the sea (Fig. 44 c).
The mixed white sand with reworked fossils reached the maximum thickness near the
shoreline and is found at a depth of 22 cm (Fig. 49). Two phases of boulder accumulation
were found at depths of 25 and 40 cm. The first phase of the boulders has an angular
surface, while the second phase of boulders and pebbles is more elliptical and smoothed.
82
Four charcoal samples are chosen for dating in Trench 5 (Table 1 in Appendix E). The first
charcoal is found at 12 cm depth and has an age of 360-50 BC for the transported sediments.
The second sample is found at 17 cm depth with and age 30- 180 AD. The third and fourth
charcoal samples are found at depths of 33 and 37 cm and have calibrated dates of 350-
1050 BC and 2400-4000BC, respectively. These last two samples, found in the thicker
tsunami layer in Trench 5, resulted from transport due to high energy currents during
tsunami waves.
Fig. 48: Description of trench no.4.The arrow reflects tsunami layer 1.
Fig.49: Description of trench no.5.
83
ii. El-Alamein site
This site is located ~10 km northwest of El Alamein village and immediately north
of the German World War II graveyard (Figs. 50 a and b). We proceeded with 12 cores at
the site (Figs. 50). The cores were carried out using the Cobra instrument and the
maximum~2.4 m depth was reached at core 12.
The photography and sedimentary markers in the detail log description, X-ray scanning,
magnetic susceptibility, measurements and the geochemical analysis in 12 cores at El-
Alamein site help us to identify the stratigraphy of the tsunami layers. The following is the
description and interpretation of tsunami layers in cores from the El Alamein site (see Fig.
50 for core location) :
Fig. 50: a) Dunes;b) Paleoseismic site at El Alamein with white sand dune deposits along
the coast site (Google Earth image). Dune heights may reach 40 m, but northeast of core C9
the outlet of seawater corresponds to the area of minimum dune heights.
Core 1
This core is located 166 m from the shoreline, east of the study area behind the sand
dunes and near the outlet of the seawater. The core depth is 2.14 m and the stratigraphic
section consists of 11 stratigraphic units of sand and clay sediments with varying amounts of
minerals content. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Figs. 51,52) :
84
The first layer is at 12.5 cm depth with 34.5 cm thick, brown clay sediments with extremely
poor sorting, fine grain sediments, with an observable peak in magnetic susceptibility, rich
in organic matter, and the X-ray image reflects clear lamination.
The second layer at 70 cm depth is 5 cm thick. It is characterized by highly broken
shell fragments with the extremely bad sorting of sediments. The third layer at 75 m depth is
22 cm thick as is a pale yellow sand with the extremely bad sorting of sediments, with an
observable peak in magnetic susceptibility. The chemical analysis shows the presence of
gypsum and minor goethite.
A possible fourth tsunami layer at 160 cm depth is a 20 cm thick, brown silty clay
with extremely poor sorting, with a peak in magnetic susceptibility, rich in broken shell
fragments and high organic matter.
Two samples are chosen for dating in core 1. The first charcoal sample is at a depth of 40
cm and has a calibrated date of 13985-14415 BC (Table 2 in Appendix E). The second is a
bone sample from a depth of 50 cm and has a calibrated age of 403-603 AD. The first
sample is transported from deep sediments as this sample is located in first stratigraphic
tsunami layer. This sample is transported due to high current waves because of tsunami
waves. The second sample is between two tsunamis in stratigraphic succession 1 and 2. This
sample reflects the probable tsunami of 8 August 1303 above and 21 July 365 below.
Core 2
As shown in Fig. 50 b, core 2 is 90 cm deep located south of core 1 at 264 m from
the shoreline. Two tsunami layers are recognized as shown in (Fig.53). The first tsunami
layer, of brown clay sediments, is at 12.5 cm depth and is 12.5 cm thick with extremely bad
sorting, corresponding to a small peak at magnetic susceptibility. The layer is rich in organic
matter (> 1 weight %) compared with other layers of this core; the geochemical analysis
shows minor component of goethite.
The second layer is at 50 cm depth and is 15 cm thick and is made of yellow sand
with silty-clay pockets, rich with broken shell fragments, extremely poor sorting with peak
magnetic susceptibility. It is rich in organic matter compared to other layers, and the
geochemical analysis shows minor component of halite.
Two samples are chosen for dating in core 2. The two gastropod samples are at depths of 75
and 77 cm and have calibrated dates of 32971-34681 and 34362-36931 BC, respectively
(Table 2 in Appendix E). These two samples are located at the bottom of tsunami
stratigraphic layer 2. These samples are transported from the deepest sediments due to high
current waves of the tsunami.
85
Core 3
This core is located 270 m from the shoreline and the outlet of sea water as shown in Fig. 50
b.
The first tsunami layer is at 25 cm depth and corresponds to a 26 cm thick pale
brown clay with poorly sorted sediments. It is characterized by highly broken shell
fragments and is rich in organic matter. The second layer, at 70 cm depth, is 17.5 cm thick
and is characterized by white sand with laminations at the top and fine sediments at the
bottom, with a peak of magnetic susceptibility near zero value, and with high organic matter
> 2. The third tsunami layer at 106 cm depth is 32 cm thick, characterized by yellow sand
with minor illite and broken shells fragments as shown in (Fig. 54).
Two samples are chosen for dating in core 3. The two shell samples are at depths of 37 and
45 cm and have calibrated dates of 43618 BC and 34218-37224 BC, respectively (Table 2 in
Appendix E). These two samples are located in stratigraphic tsunami layer 2. These samples
are transported from the deepest sediments due to high energy current waves of the tsunami.
Core 4
It is located 435 m from the shoreline. It characterized by two tsunami layers (Fig.
55). The first tsunami layer is white sand at 12.5 cm depth and is 7 cm thick with highly
sorted sediments. It also shows highly broken shell fragments with organic matter > 2. The
third tsunami layer is a 35 cm thick pale yellow sand at 102 cm depth. It is also
characterized by yellow sand with a minor amount of illite and gypsum and broken shell
fragments.
One sample is chosen for dating in core 4. The shell sample is at a depth of 37 cm and has a
calibrated date of 32887-34447 BC (Table 2 AppendixE). This sample is located in
stratigraphic tsunami layer 1. This sample is transported from the deepest sediments due to
high energy current waves because of the tsunami.
Core 5
This is the southernmost core in the El Alamein site and is 490 m from the shoreline
(Fig. 53 b). It does not contain any tsunami layers (Fig. 56). It may mean that core 5 fixes
the limit of inundation in the area with respect to the first and second tsunami layers.
One sample is chosen for dating in core 5. The gastropod sample is at a depth of 50 cm and
has a calibrated date of 442182-448237 BC (Table 2 in Appendix E). This sample is
transported due to high current waves from the deepest sediments.
86
87
Fig. 51: Description of core no.1 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean grain size,
sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 166 m from the shoreline and reveals
3 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic
matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and 3) and organic matter are
88
Fig. 52: Description of core no.1 section 2 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology,
mean grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The fourth layer (see
numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The
layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility and organic matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami
origin
89
Fig. 53 : Description of core no.2 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean grain
size, sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at s ~90 cm deep located south of
core 1 at ~264 m from the shoreline. It reveals 2 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy
deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The layers with high values of magnetic
susceptibility (especially for 1 and 2) and organic matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
90
Fig. 54 : Description of core no.3 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean grain size,
sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at located at 270 m far from the shoreline
and the outlet of seawater. It reveals 3 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse
sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and 2
and 3) and with laminations at 2 and high organic matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
91
sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 435 m from the shoreline 166 m from the
shoreline. It reveals 2 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed
clay and organic matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1 and 3) and organic
matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin.
92
Fig. 56: Description of core no.5 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean grain
size, sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 490 m distance from the
shoreline and the sedimentary succession does not show any possible sedimentary high-energy sedimentary layer
of tsunami origin.
Core 6
This core is located south of the sand dunes, 320 m from the shoreline. It is
characterized by three tsunami layers (Fig. 57). The first tsunami layer is a pale yellow sand
with broken shell fragments at 5 m depth and is 24 cm thick with highly sorted sediments
rich in an organic matter > 2.5. The second tsunami layer is at 58 cm depth and is 18.5 cm
thick and is characterized by yellow sand with a minor amount of gypsum and Illite. The
third tsunami layer at 130 cm depth is 20 cm thick and is characterized by white sand with a
minor amount of goethite and broken shell fragments. It is very rich in the total weight of
organic matter >3 weight %.
Three samples are chosen for dating in core 6. The first gastropod sample is at a depth of 45
cm and has a calibrated date of 35002-37441 BC. The second coral sample is at a depth of
60 cm and has a calibrated age of 42776-69225 BC. The third coral sample is at a depth of
80 cm and has a calibrated age of 1620AD (Table 2 in Appendix E). The first sample was
above the stratigraphic tsunami layer 2 while the second sample was within the stratigraphic
tsunami layer 2. These samples are transported due to high current waves of the tsunami.
The last sample may be transported due to old farming which occurs up to depths of 80 cm.
Core 7
This core was located 273 m from the shoreline. It characterized by three tsunami
layers(Fig. 58). The first tsunami layer is a 6 cm thick brown sand with broken shell
fragments at 14 cm depth with highly sorted sediments. It is characterized as being rich with
organic matter > 2 and a noticeable peak of magnetic susceptibility and the presence of
gypsum from the lagoonal environment and a minor amount of Illite and goethite. The
second tsunami layer, at 50 cm depth, is a 20 cm thick layer characterized by pale brown
clay with pebbles at the bottom. The third tsunami layer, at 115 cm depth, is a 15 cm thick
layer characterized by white sand, bad sorting of sediments with a minor amount of pyrite.
One sample is chosen for dating in core 7. The sample is at a depth 17 cm and has a
calibrated date of 293-1113 BC.
Core 8
This core is located 214 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized as
shown in (Fig. 59) in this core. The first tsunami layer is a pale silty clay at 14 cm depth and
16 cm thick with high organic matter and a minor amount of Goethite. It is characterized by
highly broken shell fragments and is rich in organic matter. The second layer, at 52 cm
depth, is 22 cm thick and is characterized by pale yellow silty-clay, with a low peak of
magnetic susceptibility and high organic matter >2.5. The third tsunami layer at 128 cm
93
depth is 9 cm thick and characterized by pale yellow sand with highly angular gravel
sediments, badly sorted and broken shell fragments.
Core 9
It is located 130 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized within
the core (Fig. 60). The first tsunami layer is a white sand at 16 cm depth. It is 13 cm thick,
with high organic matter and rips up clasts that appear in X-ray scanning and characterized
by highly broken shell fragments and is rich in organic matter. The second layer, at 67 cm
depth, is 22 cm thick and is characterized by white sand, with a peak of the magnetic
susceptibility high content of organic matter > 5. The third tsunami layer at 139 cm depth is
14 cm thick and is characterized by broken shell fragments and white sand with highly
angular sediments that reflect the bad granulometric sorting.
Two samples are chosen for dating in core 9 (Table 1 in Appendix E). The first gastropod
sample is at a depth of 24 cm and has a calibrated date of 1052-1888 BC. The second
bivalve sample is at a depth of 55 cm and has a calibrated age of 40521-43169 BC. The first
sample was found in the stratigraphic tsunami layer1 while the second sample was below the
stratigraphic tsunami layer 1 and above stratigraphic tsunami layer 2. These samples are
transported due to high current waves of the tsunami.
Core 10
It is located 245 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Fig. 61).
The first tsunami layer is a brown silty clay at 19 cm depth. It is 9 cm thick, with high
organic matter and with rip up clasts and lamination that appear in X-ray scanning. It is
characterized by highly broken shells fragments and is rich in an organic matter > 4. The
second layer at 48 cm depth is 38 cm thick and is characterized by brown sand with broken
fragments of shells, with a peak of magnetic susceptibility and high organic matter > 1.5 at
the bottom of the layer. The third tsunami layer, at 101 cm depth, is 28 cm thick and
characterized by pale yellow sand rich in organic matter and sediments that reflect the bad
sorting.
Two samples are chosen for dating in core 10. The first shell sample is at a depth of
24 cm and has a calibrated date of 2623-3521 BC. The second bone sample is at a depth of
70 cm and has a calibrated age of 41256-46581 BC (Table 2 in Appendix E). The first
sample was found in the stratigraphic tsunami layer 1 while the second sample was within
stratigraphic tsunami layer 2. These samples are transported due to high current waves of a
tsunami from the deepest sediments.
94
95
sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 320 m from the shoreline and reveals 3
main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic
96
sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 273 m from the shoreline and reveals
3 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic
97
matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1, 2 and 3) and organic matter are
98
main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand with highly broken shells
fragments and rich in organic matter. The high values of magnetic susceptibility and organic matter point to the white
coarse sands with broken shells interpreted as tsunami deposits.
99
Fig.61: Description of core no.10 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean grain size,
main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter.
The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1, 2 and 3) and organic matter are interpreted as
Core 11
It is located 151 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Fig. 62).
The first tsunami layer is a white sand at 19 cm depth. It is 10 cm thick and characterized by
highly broken shells fragments and rich in an organic matter > 4 with a high weight% of
gypsum. The second layer at 76 cm depth is 9 cm thick and characterized by white sand,
with broken fragments of shells, with a peak of magnetic susceptibility and high organic
matter > 1.5. The third tsunami layer at 107 cm depth is 21 cm thick and is characterized by
grey silt and sediments which reflect the bad sorting and high organic-rich matter with a
minor amount of Illite and gypsum.
Eight samples are chosen for dating in core 11. The first gastropod sample is at a
depth of 20 cm and has a calibrated date of 3638-4328 BC. The second shell sample is at a
depth of 62 cm and has a calibrated date of 3710-3943 BC (Table 2 in Appendix E). These
two samples are found in the stratigraphic tsunami layer 1 and 2, respectively. They are
transported from the deepest sediments by high wave current of the tsunami.
The third gastropod sample is found at a depth of 116 cm and has a calibrated date of
2619-3386 BC. The fourth gastropod sample is found at a depth of 121 cm and has a
calibrated date of 2457-3366 BC. The fifth gastropod sample is found at a depth of 126 cm
and has a calibrated date of 2477-3368 BC. The sixth shell sample is found at a depth of 152
cm and has a calibrated date of 33294-36120 BC. The seventh root sample is found at a
depth of 139 cm and has a calibrated age of 2666-2817 BC. The eighth charcoal sample is
found at a depth of 180 cm and has a calibrated date of 3710-3943 BC (Table 2 in Appendix
E). From the third to eighth samples, except the sixth sample, are arranged chronologically
within the second meter in the core from 2457 to 3943 BC. The sixth sample seemed to be
transported by high wave current of the tsunami.
Core 12
It is located 127 m from the shoreline. Four tsunami layers are recognized (Figs. 63
and64). The first layer is variable in thickness,but~7.5cmthick at ~19cmdepth. It is made of
poorly sorted white sandy deposits, and highly broken gastropods and lamellibranch fossils.
This layer is characterized by a high value of organic matter and the high peak of magnetic
susceptibility reflect rich carbonates. The second layer is ~13cm thick at ~32.5cmdepth and
is characterized by white sandy deposits intercalated with coarse brown sand horizontal
lamination, poorly sorted sediments, rich in total organic matter and the high peak of
magnetic susceptibility. The third layer is ~25cmthick at 89cmdepth and is made of grey
sandy clay, with laminations at the bottom of deposits, vertically aligned gastropods, broken
shell fragments, rich in total organic matter and pyrite showing a high peak of magnetic
susceptibility. The fourth tsunami layer is at 151 cm depth and is 17.5 cm thick. It is
100
characterized by pale yellow medium to fine-grained sand with broken shell fragments and
extremely poor sorting, with the high peak of magnetic susceptibility, the high peak of
organic matter > 5.5 and high amount of gypsum.
Five samples are chosen for dating in core 12. The first gastropod sample is found at
a depth of 44 cm and has a calibrated date of 3367-3366 BC. The second shell sample is
found at a depth of 108 cm and has a calibrated age of 3097-3950 BC (Table 2 in Appendix
E). The third gastropod sample is found at a depth of 114 cm and has a calibrated date of
3331-4050. The fourth shell sample is found at a depth of 117 cm and has a calibrated age of
39560-40811 BC. The fifth gastropod sample is found at a depth of 135 cm and has a
calibrated age of 3365-4071 BC (Table 2 in Appendix E). The first and fourth samples seem
to be transported from deep sediments due to high energy wave current. The other samples
were found within the second meter of the core sediments and this coincides with the
calibrated ages in core 11; as it indicates the second meter of the sediments belonged to
2457 to 4071 BC ages.
101
102
103
Fig. 63 : Description of core no.12 section 1 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean
grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The core is at 151 m from the shoreline
and reveals 3 main layers (see numbers and pointed hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay
and organic matter. The layers with high values of magnetic susceptibility (especially for 1, 2 and 3) and organic
matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin
104
Fig. 64: Description of core no.12 section 2 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail description of lithology, mean
grain size, sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy. The fourth layer (see numbers and pointed
hands) of high energy deposits with coarse sand and mixed clay and organic matter. The layers with high values of
magnetic susceptibility and organic matter are interpreted as deposits of tsunami origin
4.4. The composite section and chronology sequence of the tsunami layers
The correlation between trenches and cores in both sites helps to construct two
composite sections from both sites using the chorology from the dated samples. The
stratigraphic position of the tsunami layers was identified in the sediments of cores and
trenches based on the grain size, sedimentary structures and the nature of the contact (sharp
or gradual), fossils content, and geochemical and magnetic susceptibility. The composite
stratigraphic section of 1 m of sediments from trenches in Kefr Saber with chronology
dating are summarized in Fig. 65 and the composite section for the cores in El Alamein are
summarized in Fig. 66.
The sedimentary units in Kefr Saber trenches were identified as nine stratigraphic units
(Fig. 65) in the composite section. The tsunami layers are characterized by stratigraphic
signatures probably related to one tsunami. The tsunami layer is at a depth of ~35 cm with
thickness varying along the trenches from 2 to 20 cm. The tsunami layer appears as a
homogeneous white sandy layer that exists in trenches P1, P3 and P4 located in a middle of
the lagoon. The tsunami deposits are composed of white sand with oolitic carbonate similar
to the nearby sand dunes. The white sandy layer is rich in reworked fossils and broken shell
fragments with a high percentage of carbonate.
The sedimentary units of the cores at El Alamein site were identified by 11
stratigraphic units in the composite section (Fig. 66). The first tsunami layer has an average
thickness of7.5 cm and is found at a depth of 13.5 cm. It is made of poorly sorted white
sandy deposits with highly broken gastropods and lamellibranch fossils. The observable
peak in magnetic susceptibility is a low value close to zero which reflects a rich carbonate
content in the tsunami layer. The X-rays correlation between cores shows laminations and
rip up clast in this layer. The second tsunami layer is ~15cmthick and is 50 cm deep. It is
characterized by white sandy deposits intercalated with coarse brown sand horizontal
lamination, poor sorting sediments, rich in total organic matter and the high peak of
magnetic susceptibility. The bottom of this layer is characterized by pebbles.This layer also
shows inclined stratifications. The third tsunami layer is ~25 cm thick and the depth is 89
cm. It is made of grey sandy clay to pale yellow sand, with laminations at the bottom of
deposits. We also observe vertical and horizontal gastropods direction, broken shell
fragments, rich in total organic matter and pyrite and goethite, showing a high peak of
magnetic susceptibility. The fourth tsunami layer has an average thickness of 20 cm and a
105
depth which varies from 151 to 160 cm with highly poorly sorted sediments. It is also
characterized by brown silty clay with broken shell fragments.
By dating the samples (see Table 1 and 2 in Appendix E) it reflects multiple effects
that a tsunami wave can have on deep sea and coastal sedimentation in a Mediterranean type
basin. Moreover, the transportation of samples in depths, not its real depths due to high
energy wave current resulted from tsunami or old age storm. The C14 isotopic dating of
tsunami deposits has allowed the correlation with known historical earthquakes of the
Eastern Mediterranean region. Compared with other Mediterranean coastal regions, our
results show the identification of one tsunami stratigraphy markers in Kefr Saber and four
tsunami stratigraphic deposits at the El Alamein site.
The chronology of sediments in cores in El Alamein was constructed with the
Bayesian simulation provides the dating of the four tsunami deposits using the Oxcal
software Bronk-Ramsay (2001). The tsunami layers are comparable with the four historical
events :simulated tsunami event (W, 1600 BC(Santorini tsunami ?) ;simulated tsunami event
(X, 21July365) ; (simulated tsunami event Y, 8 August 1303) ; (simulated tsunami event Z,
24 June 1870), as shown from the probability density function (PDF) of the Oxcal program
as shown in Fig. 66. One recognized stratigraphic tsunami layer at Kefr Saber compared
with the 21 July 365 tsunami (simulated tsunami event X) as shown in Fig.65
Fig. 65: Composite section for the trenches in Kefr Saber.
106
Fig. 66: Composite section for the cores in El Alamein.
4.5 Conclusion and Summary of results:

The geomorphological landforms along the northern Egyptian coast are
characterized by sand dunes, accumulation of large boulders, lagoons. The large
accumulation of boulders extends along the Egyptian coast particularly in Ras EL Hekma
and Kefr Saber which have boulders rich in Dendropoma species. Although the detailed
study of boulders is not included in this study, two Dendropoma species were sampled (see
Table 1 in Appendix E) in the Ras ELHekma and Kefr Saber for dating. Our dating result of
Dendropoma in Ras el Hekma has a calibrated date of 6812-7597 BC. This means that these
boulders may have been transported as a result of a strong storm or tsunami during the old
ages (6812-7597 BC). The calibrated date of Dendrompa at Kefr Saber was a 940-1446 AD.
This Dendropoma sample date coincides with the 8 August 1303 tsunami and these results
agree with Shah-Hosseini et al., (2016).
The cores and trenches in both the Kefr Saber and Alamein sites were dug during
three fieldworks to identify the tsunami deposits according to their interpreted sedimentary
tsunami signatures (see details of trenches and cores above). The stratigraphic log of the
trenches in Kefr Saber mainly show one tsunami layer of mixed sand and gravel, and broken
shells at a depth of ~ 35 cm (see the composite section in Fig. 65). The cores in El Alamein
show four main layers, characterized by fine and coarse sand mixed with broken shell
fragments that indicate the occurrence of high energy sedimentary deposits in the coastal
107
lagoon environment(see the composite section in Fig. 66). A remarkable observation is the
similarity of the white layers of sand with broken shells observed in trenches and cores at
both sites ~200 km apart. We interpret these as tsunami deposits due to their sedimentary
signatures (see details of core descriptions above).
From the composite sections and dating chronology in Kefr Saber and El Alamein
VLWHVDQGWKHUHVXOWVRIRXUSDSHUHQWLWOHGµ¶3DOHRWVXQDPLGHSRVLWVDORQJWKH1RUWKHUQFRDVW
of Egypt correlate with historical earthquake records oIHDVWHUQ0HGLWHUUDQHDQ¶¶LWDSSHDUV
that the tsunami deposits of the 365 AD tsunamigenic earthquake have a larger thickness at
Kefr Saber site than at the El Alamein site. However, the opposite trend is seen for the 1303
AD and 1870 AD sedimentary layers which are thicker at the El Alamein site. These
observations can be justified by the proximity of the tsunamigenic source in western Crete
and 365 AD earthquake with respect to the Kefr Saber site, and the proximity of the 1303
AD and 1870 AD seismic sources in the east Hellenic Arc with regards to the El Alamein
site.
108
Chapter V
Tsunami modelling and scenarios in the northern Egypt
5.1. Introduction
The analysis of tsunami scenarios is a very useful approach for the evaluation of
tsunami hazard and risk for any given region. It is the first step in the frame of tsunami
mitigation and preparedness for a sustainable coastal zone development. Few countries
around the world took serious notice of tsunamis until the occurrence of the Indian Ocean
tsunami following the Mw 9.1 earthquake of December 26, 2004, in Sumatra (Indonesia).
The massive tsunami generated by the Great Tohoku earthquake Mw 9 in East Japan on 11
March 2011 had a maximum wave height that reached to 19.5 m at Sendai Plain (Mori et al.,
2011) and impacted a 2000km stretch of the Pacific coast of eastern Japan. The tsunami
propagated more than 5km inland.
These significant events around the world brought the problem of tsunami hazard
and risk assessment to the attention of the scientific community and showed the urgent need
for tsunami hazard assessment for other seismogenic regions. The assessment is important
for the Eastern-Mediterranean countries that are known to have been affected by
earthquakes, volcanic eruption or landslides and related tsunamis events throughout history.
Major historical tsunamis in the eastern Mediterranean region that affected northern Egypt
are triggered by large earthquakes (Papadopoulos et al., 2014) but the possibility of
landslide tsunami associated with local earthquakes (El-Sayed et al., 2004; Yalciner et al.,
2014). However, the effects of landslide tsunami are limited to the nearby coastline as
shown by the recent examples of landslide tsunamis in the Mediterranean associated with
the eruption of Stromboli volcanic eruption of 30 December 2002 (Tinti et al., 2005).
Egypt is one of these countries that have experienced strong tsunami impacts in the
past (e.g., 21 July 365 and 8 August 1303 AD tsunamis) and has geological records along
coastlines. The Eastern Mediterranean area is characterized by very complex tectonics that
can be generally described in the frame of the convergence of the African plate towards
Eurasia. The problem is particularly urgent for the Mediterranean countries that are known
to have been affected by tsunamis in the past, several of which had catastrophic size and
impacts. A detailed description of the seismotectonic processes responsible for tsunamis
taking place in the Eastern Mediterranean region and possible tsunami sources are described
in Chapter III & Chapter IV. The record of paleotsunami events presented in the previous
109
chapter indicates the location of two large historical tsunami events of 21 July 365 and 8
August 1303.
The aim of this chapter is to develop two simple scenarios for the main far field
tsunami-genic in the eastern and western Hellenic arcs which have geological records in this
study. we test five scenarios of eastern Hellenic arc and five scenarios of western Hellenic
arcs using different focal mechanisms of large recent earthquakes of the same historical
location information of the 21 July 365 and 8 August 1303 (Stiros, 2010; Guidoboni and
Comastri, 2005) and we used the calculated fault ruptures of eastern Hellenic arc (Stiros,
2010) and for eastern Hellenic arc (Pagnoni et al., 2015). The magnitude of the earthquakes
were enlarged to be equal or larger than the largest magnitude recorded in historical times.
Then we simulate the ensuing tsunamis using the Mirone version 2.70 (updated by 22
October 2016; Luis (2007)), highlighting the basic features of the wave propagation and
roughly identifying the coastal sectors that are expected to suffer the largest tsunami
impacts. The following describes the two scenarios used in the eastern and western Hellenic
arcs :
5.2. The eastern Hellenic arc scenario

In the first scenario, we consider a Mw 8.9 earthquake generated on the eastern
segment of thrust fault running parallel to Eastern Crete on the 1303 AD west Rhodos
segment (Figs.67 and 72). The fault rupture geometry at the eastern segment of Crete Island
used in this scenario is shown in Table 5 and consists in a thrust fault that belongs to the
Hellenic subduction zone. The initial tsunami conditions for this first case are plotted in Fig.
67. The maximum positive and negative initial water elevations are > 15 m and -16 m at the
tsunami source, respectively.
In the following analysis of computed wave propagation, snapshot images show the
tsunami fields every 0, 33, 50, 66, 80 minutes after the tsunami initiation (Figs. 68, 69, 70,71
and 72). The scenario describing the tsunami propagation after 50 minutes indicates that the
wave arrives at the Kefr Saber and El Alamein investigated sites on the Egyptian coast with
a wave height between 7-10 m (Fig. 70). The modelling results show that the entire
Egyptian coast is affected by the tsunami triggered in the eastern Hellenic arc with a
variation of the wave heights and arrival time.
110
Table 5: Fault geometry and parameters (see Fig. 67) in the east Hellenic arc used for our
modelling and scenario modified after Pagnoni et al., 2015.
Fault parameters Values Uncertainty Measured
value
Length 124 km ±65 116±65
Width 47 km ±9 37±9
Slip 8m ±1.5 7±1.5
Depth (at the bottom of fault) 57 km
Rigidity 3×10 11 dyne/cm2
Seismic moment (Mo) 1.4 × 1028dyne.cm
Mw 8.0 dyne.cm
Strike 54°
Dip 55°
Rake 90°
Fig. 67: Bathymetry data from Gebco (2014) (30 arc seconds) with the location of the fault
rupture zone (box) along the Hellenic subduction between Crete and Rhodos as the seismic
source for the first scenario.
111
Fig. 68: Initial wave of the eastern Hellenic arc scenario (see seismic source parameters in
Table 4 and location in Fig.67).
Fig. 69: Wave propagation at min 33 after the tsunami was triggered by an EH source.
112
Fig. 70: The wave height after 50 minutes of wave propagation in the eastern Hellenic arc
scenario. Wave heights of 10 m reach northern Egypt.
scenario. Wave heights of 7 m reach northern Egypt.
113
scenario. Wave heights of4 m reach northern Egypt.
5.3. The western Hellenic arc scenario

In the second scenario, we consider a Mw 8.8 earthquake generated in the western
segments of thrust fault running parallel to western Crete (Table 6 and Fig.73). The initial
tsunami condition for this second scenario is plotted in Fig. 74 and show the maximum
positive and negative initial water elevations at the tsunami source are 11 m and -5.0 m,
respectively.
The following snapshot images in Figs.74 to 78 show the tsunami wave propagation
computed at different arrival times i.e. 0, 33, 66, 100, 150 minutes, after the tsunami
initiation. Our observation is that the entire Egyptian coast is affected by the tsunami of the
western Hellenic arc, but with a relatively long time of wave propagation with regards to the
eastern Hellenic scenario.
The image snapshot of the tsunami propagation after 33 minutes shows that the wave
arrives on the Libyan coast with a 4-10 m wave height (Fig. 75). The wave arrives at the
Egyptian coast after 66 minutes (Fig. 76) with slightly lower wave height compared with the
wave on the Libyan coast. The image describing the tsunami propagation after 100 minutes
indicates that the waves arrive at the Egyptian coast with a 0.86-1.76 m wave height at Kefr
Saber and a 0.44-0.87 m wave height the at El Alamein (Fig. 77). The tsunami waves from
the western Hellenic arc source and scenario cover the entire Egyptian coast after 150
minutes (Fig. 78).
114
Table 6: Fault configuration (see Fig. 73) in the west Hellenic arc used for our
modelling and scenario modified after Stiros, 2010.
Fault geometry Values Uncertainty Measured

value
Length 115 km ±73 125±73
Width 45 km ±35 63±45
Slip 16 m ±7.5 17±7.5
Depth (at the bottom of fault) 40 km
Rigidity 3×10 11 dyne/cm2
Seismic moment (Mo) 2.484 × 10 28 dyne.cm
Mw 8.2 dyne.cm
Strike 133.5°
Dip 45°
Rake 90°
Fig. 73: Bathymetry data from Gebco (2014) (30 arc seconds) with the location of the fault
rupture zone (box) along the Hellenic subduction west of Crete as the seismic source for the
second scenario.
115
Fig. 74: Initial wave of the Western Hellenic arc scenario.
Fig.75: The wave height after 33 minutes of wave propagation in the Western Hellenic arc
scenario.
116
Fig.76: The wave height wave after 66 minutes of wave propagation in the Western Hellenic
arc scenario.
Fig.77: The wave height after 100 minutes of wave propagation in the Western Hellenic arc
scenario.
117
Fig.78: The wave height after 150 of wave propagation in the Western Hellenic arc scenario.
5.3. Comparing my two scenarios with previous studies
Various numerical studies of tsunami modelling and estimation of the wave height
run-up and wave propagation have been conducted for the eastern Hellenic arc (Hamouda,
2006 ; Hassan, 2013 ;Pagnoni et al. 2015), and for the western Hellenic arc (Hamouda 2009,
Shaw et al., 2008, Pagnoni et al. 2015). Those studies have obtained different results with
respect to the wave heights and the time of wave arrival on a given coastline. The
differences arise because of a) the bathymetry data used the modelling has different
resolutions, and b) various different fault rupture and surface deformation parameters have
been used. The wave height run-up and wave propagation of these studies are summarized
in Table 6.
Comparing my results with others studies helps to imagine all possible scenarios
and how to deal with each in the case of a tsunami in the future (Table 7). My simulation
results of the estimated wave heights at Salloum, Alexandria, Damietta well agree with
Hassan, (2013) however, my results show higher estimated wave heights at Matrouh and El
Arish for the Eastern Hellenic arc scenario (Table 7). Hamouda (2006, 2009) have the
highest wave height of 9.4 m at Alexandria in the western Hellenic arc scenarios. Simulated
results of Shaw et al., (2008) offshore of Alexandria shows wave heights of ±0.6 m which is
in agreement with my results at Alexandria in case of Western Hellenic arc scenario. The
first arrival time of my simulations is similar with Pagnoni et al. (2015), especially for
Alexandria and Matrouh in the eastern Hellenic scenario.
118
Table 7: Summary of different tsunami wave propagation and arrival time scenarios in the
Eastern Mediterranean from historical earthquake data.
Study reference Salama Hamouda Hamouda Hassan Shaw
Pagnoni
et al.
This study (2009) (2006) (2013) et al (2015)
(2008)
8
21July 8 August 21July 21 July WHA EHA
Tsunami event WHA EHA Aug.
365 1303 365 365
1303
Salloum 60 30 50 28 62 39 50 40 30
Matrouh 66 33 64 31 61 29 60 60 40
First
arrival of Alexandria 120 40 83 43 140 98 70 80 60
tsunami
(minutes) Damietta 150 68 98 62 143 100 _ 120 100
EL Arish 160 80 115 73 170 123 _ 140 140
Salloum 0.8 4-7 2.1 1.8 3.5 5.0 0.5 4.0 2.0
Max. Matrouh 1.6 7-10 2.2 2.0 3.3 4.0 0.4 3.0 2.0
Wave Alexandria 0.4-0.8 2-4 9.4 8.9 3.0 3.0 0.6 2.5 3-4.0
height
(m) Damietta 0.4 1.4-4 6.1 5.6 1.4 1.0 _ 1-2 3.5
EL Arish 0.26 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.6 _ 0.5 1.5
5.4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The two main seismic sources of the tsunami were the eastern and western Hellenic
arcs in the Eastern Mediterranean. These sources are responsible for two large historical
earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis, which affected Egypt on 21 July 365 and 8 August
1303 (Ambrayses, 2009). While the third seismic source is Cyprus zone and it was
considered as a low potentiality of the tsunami.
I tested two programs of tsunami wave propagation in Eastern and western
Hellenic arc with scenarios using NAMIDANCE beta V.9.0, (Velioglu et al., 2016) and
Mirone v. 2.7 (Luis, 2007). I succeeded to create an initial wave from Mirone v.2.7, 22
October 2016 updated. Two-tsunami scenario were developed with sources in the eastern
and western Hellenic arcs. These tsunami events were based on the geological tsunami
records in Kefr Saber and EL Alamein (see chapter IV for details about the historical events
and tsunami deposits). The uncertainties of these two models depending on the chosen fault
rupture data, the quality of the bathymetry data and the accuracy of the model used. The
fault ruptures used in this study for the western Hellenic scenario are those calculated by
Stiros (2010) and used in Pagnoni et al. (2015) study with changes in these fault parameters.
The uncertainties are calculated for the fault geometry (i.e length, width, and slip) used in
east and west Hellenic arcs as it compared with the previous studies (see tables 5 and 6).
Also, the uncertainties are calculated in wave height (m) depend on the tested 5 scenarios
119
resulted in ±5 m in wave height in case of east Hellenic arc scenario and ± 1.5 m in wave
height in case of west Hellenic arc scenario.
We chose highest resolution bathymetry data available (30 arc seconds, Gebco 2014)
to reduce any uncertainties. Although, the irregularities along the Egyptian coast shape i.e
syncline bays in Alexandria or and in front of Kefr Saber or Ras El Hekma, will require
high-resolution coastal bathymetry of 1-3 arc seconds to reduce uncertainties in simulated
wave height. Two worst scenarios were chosen based on historical damage information and
effective possible wave height along the Egyptian coast resulting from testing 10 scenarios
with changing in the fault parameters. The simulations were carried out using the Mirone
software Luis (2007) which computed the wave propagation and identified the coastal
sectors that are expected to suffer the largest tsunami effects along the northern Egypt coast.
From a tsunami hazard assessment point of view, these simulations show detailed
information about the travel time and wave height of tsunamis. From the western Hellenic
source zone, the Egyptian coast can expect a maximum wave height 1.7 m tsunami at Kefr
Saber after 66 minutes as shown in Fig.79a, 0.5 m after 100 minutes at ElAlamein as shown
in Fig.79 b while Alexandria has 0.8 m after 100 minutes as shown in Fig.79 c. For Eastern
Hellenic zone, the Egyptian coast has the maximum wave heights of 7-10 m at Kefr
SaberandEl Alamein as shown in Fig.79 e, f. While Alexandria the maximum wave height is
4m at 120 minutes as shown in Fig.79 d. Therefore, the East Hellenic zone is considered as a
high hazard location. The travel times of these simulated results are sufficient enough for
evacuation SODQVWREHLPSOHPHQWHGWRVDYHSHRSOH¶VOLYHV (see Table 8 in Chapter VI). In
addition, these simulations can help in the protection of the strategic projects and a number
of archaeological sites (e.g. New El Alamein city, Ramses II temple) along the Egyptian
coast
Fig.79 a. Synthetic tide gauge at Kefr Fig.79 b. Synthetic tide gauge at El

Saber in case of west Hellenic scenario Alamein in case of west Hellenic
scenario
120
Fig.79 c. Synthetic tide gauge at Fig.79 d. Synthetic tide gauge at
Alexandria in case of west Hellenic Alexandria in case of east Hellenic
scenario scenario
Fig.79 e Synthetic tide gauge at Kefr Fig.79 f. Synthetic tide gauge at at EL

Saber in case of east Hellenic scenario Alamein in case of east Hellenic
scenario
121
122
Chapter VI
CONCLUSIONS
The study of historical and instrumental seismicity, the focal mechanisms, stress
inversions, GPS velocity vectors and the tectonic geology help me to characterize the
seismotectonic of the Eastern Mediterranean and study the impact of past tsunami in the
northern Egypt.
Firstly, the Eastern Mediterranean region is considered as a complex tectonics
domain that can be studied in the frame of the collision between the Eurasian and African
plates. In Eastern Mediterranean, the African plate subducts underneath Eurasia along the
Hellenic Arc at a rate of about 0.5-1 cm/year, while the Aegean Sea represents an
extensional basin with opening rates in the order of 3.5-4 cm/year (McClusky et al., 2000).
In the eastern Mediterranean region, the Cyprian Arc is the expression of the convergence
between the Africa plate and the Anatolia microplate and characterized by the formation of
Eratosthenes Seamount. It has been deformed in late Cenozoic (Ben Avraham et al.,1988;
Kempler and Garfunkel, 1994). The Cyprian arc connected to the Hellenic arc in the West,
and Dead Sea Transform Fault and East Anatolian Fault in the East. A northward subduction
of oceanic material related to the African Plate beneath the Anatolian Plate indicates the
convergent mode along the western segment of the Cyprian arc (Ben Avraham et al.,1988).
Secondly, six seismic active zones are identified from the study of seismicity and
tectonic geology in the north of Egypt. The six zones are the Egyptian continental margin,
Dahashour zone, Cairo-Suez zone, Northern Gulf of Suez, Southern Gulf of Suez, Gulf of
Aqaba. My works include the collecting of fault plane solutions of earthquakes in the six
active seismic zones of northern Egypt and calculating the stress inversions of the fault
parameters in these active zones using the Tensor software version 5.8.5 (Windows version;
last updated on 27/07/2016, http://www.damiendelvaux.be/Tensor/WinTensor/win-
tensor.html).
The first active zone in the north Egypt; is the Egyptian continental zone (A) which
was located to the south of the Mediterranean Sea ridge behind the Herodotus abyssal plain
where the sea floor is occupied by the Nile Deep-Sea fan, Eratosthenes Seamount, and
Herodotus basin. It represents a transition zone between the continental±oceanic crusts
where the stress field changes from dominant tension inland of Egypt to dominant
compression along the Hellenic Arc. The tectonic framework and structural pattern of the
Egyptian continental margin are the results of the interplay between three main fault trends:
123
the northwest-southeast Temsah zone; the northeast-southwest Rosetta zone, and the east-
west to ENE-WSW continental fault trends (Abdel Aal et al., 1994).
The largest historical seismic events of the Egyptian continental margin are the 320
and 956 AD earthquakes, while the largest instrumental earthquake occurred on September
12, 1955 with Ms 6.7 (Costantinescu et al., 1966) in the continental shelf of the Nile Delta.
The historical AD 320 and 956 seismic events occurred north of the epicenter of September
12, 1955 (Ms =6.8) earthquake (Korrat et al., 2005). These earthquakes were followed by
other large events that occurred within 57 years on the October 19, 2012 event at 03:35:11.2,
with Mb 5.1 according to the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC). The EL
Alamein recent earthquake occurred on September 03, 2015 (ML = 4.5) and the fault of El
Alamein was considered as a continuation of AL Qattara±EL Alamein fault zone which
extends from the Rosetta area in the continental margin.
The results of 19 collected focal mechanisms in the Egyptian continental margin
(Zone A, trend A, B (Fig.18) and adjacent area show two types of tectonic regimes: The first
group of mechanisms is represented by NW Oblique (normal ±dextral) faults and the second
is compressive represented by E-W to ENE (reverse ± left-lateral) faults. The stress
inversion of in our study of the Egyptian continental margin zone is classified in two main
trends A, B. The stress inversion of trend A of 10 collected focal mechanism with normal
faulting with strike-slip components stress regime index R ' = 0.67 of the Tensor quality is
B. The trend A represents the stresses in the Rosetta trend and continued with the stress
distribution from Alexandria to El Alamein margin (Qattara EL Alamein Ridge). The stress
inversion of trend B included 8 focal mechanism solutions. This trend represents the stresses
parallel to the Rosetta trend until Mars Matrouh area. The stress regime index R' of trend B
is 2.12 and shows pure compressive (TF) with Tensor Quality B.
The Tamash and Baltim trends in the east of continental margin are characterized by
low-level of seismicity data. The stress orientation from breakout study of Tingay et al.
(2011) using 11 wells in the front of the Nile Delta indicates a dominant N-S to NE-SW Sh.
max orientation and a secondary E-W to NW-SE orientation. Our stress results do not agree
with break hole data of (Tingay et al., 2011) in case of Rosetta trend this due to that the
borehole data have a shallow depth rather than the depth of the earthquakes.
The second active zone in northern Egypt is Dahshour zone (B). This zone is located
in the northern part of the Western Desert and in the west of the Cairo ± Suez zone. The
largest event in the Dahshour zone with ML 5.9 is the 12 October 1992 event which has
great damage mainly in Cairo (see chapter III for detail information). 15 collected focal
mechanisms in this zone show normal faulting with nodal planes trending NW-SE to E-W
with strike-slip component (Maamoun et al., 1993; Hussein, 1999). The stress inversion
124
calculated in the Dahshour zone results from 19 focal mechanisms in this zone yielding
extensive stress regime characterized by NE-SW trending faults with N25°E Shmin. The
stress index R' is 0.69 with consistent with normal faulting and strike-slip component; the
Tensor quality is B. These results agree with stress inversion calculated by Hussein et al.
(2013).
The third active zone in the northern Egypt is the Cairo Suez Zone (C) located West
the Gulf of Suez following the Cairo Suez road and north of the Eastern Desert. The two
large earthquakes events occurred on September 29, 1984, ML= 4.5 and 29 April 29, 1974 of
ML=4.6. Most of the mechanisms recorded mainly show pure normal faults and oblique
source of the normal component with E-W and NWN-SES and NW-SE trends in accordance
with the general strike direction of exposed faults. The stress tensor inversions are applied to
12 focal mechanisms events for the Cairo-Suez zone. The inversion of focal mechanisms of
earthquakes in this zone yields extensive stress regime characterized by NE-SW trending
faults with N18.7°E Sh-min. The stress index is R'=0.69 representing a normal fault with
strike faults (transtensive) component with Tensor quality A. The rotational optimization of
actual faults shows quality A stress tensor.
The fourth active zone located in the northern Egypt is north of the Gulf of Suez
zone (D) and it is considered as a Neogene continental rift which has evolved as one arm of
the Sinai triple junction together with the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. Dagett et al.
(1986) considered it as an active zone in spite of no large earthquakes occurred in this zone.
The 15 collected focal solutions are characterized by normal faulting mechanisms. The
nodal planes have directions close to NW-SE to NNW-SSE. The rest of solutions exhibit
either oblique or pure strike-slip motions. 14 focal mechanisms events for the northern Gulf
of Suez are applied to stress tensor inversions. The inversion of focal mechanisms of
earthquakes in this zone yields pure extensive stress regime characterized by NE-SW
trending faults with N44E Sh-min. The stress regime index is R'=0.64. This value is
consistent with a normal faulting and extensional regime, where the rotational optimization
of the actual faults show Tensor quality A.
The fifth active zone in the northern Egypt is the southern Gulf of Suez (E). Two
largest earthquakes are recorded in this zone which is the Shadwan Island earthquakes on 31
March 1969 (ML=6.1); and 28 June 1972 (ML=5.0). The 29 collected focal mechanism
normal faulting mechanisms with NW-SE trends. The stress tensor inversions were applied
to 28 focal mechanisms of the south of the Gulf of Suez. The inversion of focal mechanisms
of earthquakes in this zone yields extensive stress regime characterized by NE-SW trending
faults with N27.8°E Sh-min. The stress regime index is R'=0.51 and Tensor quality A.
125
The sixth active zone in northern Egypt is the Gulf of Aqaba zone (F, G subzones)
considered as a source region of intense activity which forms the main tectonic plate
boundary between Africa (Sinai) and Arabia. The largest recorded and strongest earthquake
(Mw=7.2) occurred on November 22, 1995. The 36 focal solutions show normal faulting
with left-lateral strike-slip component or strike-slip fault with minor normal component,
while some events reflect normal faulting mechanism. Most of the events show T-axes
approximately in the NNE to N-S and NW direction. The stress tensor inversions were
applied to 7 focal mechanisms events for Gulf of Aqaba zone subzone F. This zone is
located north of 29° latitudes. The inversion of focal mechanisms in this zone shows normal
faulting, where the stress regime index is R¶=0.89, N72.3ºE for Sh-min and Tensor quality
are A. The subzone G is located south of 29° latitudes, where the stress tensor inversions are
applied to 27 focal mechanisms. The stress regime index is R'=0.98, with N 59.3° E Shmin
and Tensor Quality A. The inversion of focal mechanisms of earthquakes in this zone yields
a normal faulting with strike-slip component.
To complete the picture of the deformation and direction of stresses, I compiled: a)
GPS velocity vectors to estimate the strain rate (Reilinger et al., 2006); b) stress inversion
calculated in this study using Tensor program version 5.8.6 of 23/11/2016 (Delvaux et al.,
2010); c) the stresses calculated by petroleum boreholes breakout studies (Tingay, 2011); d)
the stresses of the world stress map (http://www.world-stress-map.org/) in the Eastern
Mediterranean region and northern Egypt to have complete picture of the present-day stress
distribution. The main conclusion of stress results shows that the whole northern Egypt is
under extensional stress regime except for the Egyptian continental margin which shows
compressive trends. This stress regime is presently operating in most of the northern
Egyptian regions as normal faulting and strike-slip with Shmin trending N-NNE.
From the study of seismotectonic and paleotsunami events of seismic origin in the
Eastern and northern Egypt, four active zones are identified to be the source of possible
tsunamis. The eastern Hellenic arc, Western Hellenic arc, Cyprian arc, Egyptian continental
margin. The Eastern and Western Hellenic arcs are considered as the highest active far-field
tectonic zones and a major source of tsunamis that may strike the Egyptian coasts and
adjacent Mediterranean regions. The historical seismicity catalogue reports three significant
earthquake events of the Hellenic subduction zone with major tsunamis that have affected
the Mediterranean coast of Egypt:
1) The earthquake and tsunamigenic event of 21 July 365 (Mw 8.3 ± 8.5; Stiros and
Drakos, 2006; Shaw et al., 2008),
2) The earthquake and tsunamigenic event of 8 August 1303 (Mw 7.8 ± 8.0) (Abu El
Fida, 1329)
126
3) The earthquake and tsunamigenic event of 24 June 1870 (ML 7 -7.5)(Ben
Menahem, 1979).The three events have generated great damage in the coast of Egypt and
affected especially the Alexandria city with coastal flooding and inundations (The reported
as the water in the new port of Alexandria splashed out onto the quay (Ambraseys 1961).
The others two zones of the less active tsunamis sources are the Cyprus arc and the
Egyptian continental margin. The highest magnitude reported in earthquake catalogues for
Cyprus is7.5 and refers to the 11 May 1222, AD earthquake. This Earthquake was followed
by low tsunami impacts along the Egyptian-Mediterranean coastal zone Ambraseys (1995).
The largest earthquakes have occurred in the Egyptian continental margin as example
offshore Alexandria earthquake Ms 6.7 on September 12, 1955 (Hussein et al., 2005). It is
located in the sedimentary cone of the Nile that poses the potential for landslides tsunamis
(Garziglia et al., 2008).
Three successive field works were carried out in June 2014, August 2015, and
October 2015 in the northern Egyptian coast. The aim of this field works was to 1)
investigate the geology and geomorphology of the north coast of Egypt. 2) To study the
successive sequence of the stratigraphy of the in the both EL Alamein and Kefr Saber
selected sites and 3) characterize the age of the possible tsunami layers depend from the
carbon dating chronology and tsunami signatures.
For the paleotsunami site selection, geomorphological and topographic setting
criteria were taken into accounts as well as accessibility in order to avoid urbanization and
artificial soil reworking. The geomorphological criteria are:
The first is the presence of large boulders noticed along the coastline in northern
Egypt in localities such as Ras El Hekma ±Ras ELAlam Rum ±Mersa Matrouh - East Mersa
Matrouh (Kefr Saber) with rich content of Dendropoma fossils. The calibrated dating of
Dendropoma sample at Kefr Saber is 940-1446 AD which may be correlated with a strong
and high (> 5m) wave to Kefr Saber coast possibly during that8 August 1303 tsunami. This
result coincides with that ofShah-Hosseini et al., (2016) along the same coastline.
The second geomorphological criteria are the presence of coastal sand dunes along
the Egyptian Coast.They are composed of loose white oolitic carbonate sands washed from
the degradation of oolitic coastal dune ridges with height from 2 to 20 meters. Behind these
sand dunes, the third geomorphology criteria are the lagoons or salt marshes found between
dissected ridges with sometimes a lower elevation below sea level as West of Marsa
Matrouh.
Five trenches were carried out in Kefr Saber ~32-km west of Marsa-Matruh city. 12
cores were carried out in the second selected site of El Alamein. The cores were carried out
127
using cobra drilling instrument. The size of the trenches were~2 x 1 meter with ~1.5-m-
depth and the maximum depth of cores is ~2.6 m.
Trenches are logged and photographed with detailed description and sampling during
the field works in Kefr Saber. While the cores carried out in ElAlamein site were split in two
half in the NRIAG Laboratory with Fisher Wire. One for archive and the other for the
analysis of sedimentation and content. The studied core includes the collection of samples
for dating, photography, detail stratigraphic descriptions, X-ray scanning, geochemical
analysis and magnetic susceptibility. The main target is to identify the Paleotsunami
deposits in the stratigraphic logs according to tsunami signatures.
Two composite sections were constructed to summarize the stratigraphic logs and
recognized tsunami layers in Kefr Saber and EL Alamein site with chronology and date
simulation of paleotsunami historical events 1600 BC, 21 July 365, 8 August 1303 and a
more recent tsunami event on 24 June 1870.
The stratigraphic logs of the trenches in Kefr Saber show mainly one tsunami layer
of mixed sand and gravel, and broken shells at depth ~ 35 cm with thickness 20 cm
comparable with the 21 July 365 tsunami deposits. The cores in El Alamein show four main
layers characterized by fine and coarse sand mixed with broken shells fragments that
indicate the occurrence of high-energy sedimentary deposits in the coastal lagoon
environment.
The stratigraphic logs in cores show four main tsunami layers; A) The first layer is
~7.5-cm-thick at ~19cm-depth and is made of poorly sorted white sandy deposits with high
broken gastropods and lamellibranch fossils. The high value of organic matter and the high
peak of magnetic susceptibility reflect a rich content in carbonates and quartz. B) The
second layer is ~13-cm-thick at ~50-cm-depth characterized by white sandy deposits
intercalated with coarse brown sand with horizontal lamination, poor sorting sediments, rich
in total organic matter and a high peak of magnetic susceptibility. C) The third layer ~ 18
cm-thick at 89-cm-depth is made of yellow sand mixed with white sand intercalations, with
laminations at the bottom of deposits, vertically and horizontal gastropods directions reflect
high wave current, broken shells fragments, rich in total organic matter and pyrite showing a
high peak of magnetic susceptibility. D) The fourth tsunami layer is at 151 cm depth with
thickness 19 cm. It is characterized by pale yellow sand, medium to fine, with broken shells
fragments and extremely poor sorting, with a high peak of magnetic susceptibility, and a
high peak of organic matter > 5.5 weight percentage and high amount of gypsum.
Two worst simple scenarios with high possibility active tsunami sources were built
up by creating the initial wave of calculated fault ruptures for the Western Hellenic and
128
Eastern Hellenic arcs. This modelling depends on the presence of geological record of 21
July 365 and 8 August 1303 in the northern Egyptian coast in Kefr Saber and El Alamein.
The location of Eastern and Western Hellenic arc scenarios depends on historical
tsunami information for 21 July 365 (Stiros, 2010) and 8 August 1303 (Abu Fida, 1329;
Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005). The chosen fault parameters depended on the calculated
western Hellenic arc (Stiros, 2010) and of eastern Hellenic arc (Pagnoni et al., 2015) with
scenario tests to the focal mechanisms of large earthquakes in the recent time. The
magnitudes of earthquakes were estimated to be equal or larger than the highest magnitude
recorded in historical times (Table 4). Then we simulate numerically the ensuing tsunamis
using the Mirone software (Luis, 2007). The used bathymetry data is the 30 arc seconds grid
from the available GEBCO data online, and this in the absence of the more detail resolution
(1 or fewer arc seconds) of coastal bathymetry data in my study area.
In the Eastern Hellenic scenario, the computed wave propagation is performed every
0, 33, 50, 66, 80 minutes. After 30 minutes, the initial wave arrives and after 50 minutes
where the maximum wave heightreaches7- 10 meters in Kefr Saber and El Alamein sites. In
the Western Hellenic scenario, the tsunami wave propagation is computed at 0, 33, 66, 100,
150 minutes. The wave height reached 4-10 m at the arrival time 33 minutes on the Libyan
coast. The wave arrives at the Egyptian coast after 66 minutes with slightly low wave height
compared with the wave on the Libyan coast. The wave's height arrives at the Egyptian
coast with 0.8 ± 1.7 m at Kefr Saber and with 0.4 -0.8 m wave height at El Alamein after
100 minutes. The tsunami waves cover the entire Egyptian coast after 150 minutes from the
western Hellenic arc source scenario.
My results are compared with previous studies of (Hamouda, 2006) for the Egyptian
coast;(Hassan, 2013; Pagnoni et al., 2015) in case of Eastern Hellenic arc scenario, and for
the western Hellenic arc (Hamouda, 2009; Shaw et al., 2008, and Pagnoni et al., 2015). My
results are in agreement with modelling of (Hassan, 2013) for the wave height at Salloum,
Alexandria, Damietta in case of Eastern scenario and appear to be different from the result
of (Hamouda, 2005; andPagnoni et al., 2015). My results agree well with the size of tsunami
wave inferred from the model of Shaw et al., (2008) wave height to Alexandria in case of
the Western Hellenic scenario.
Some perspectives are suggested in this thesis for the seismotectonic and
paleotsunami studies as follows:
First, it was not possible the seismotectonics study to do detailed field investigations
of the active seismic zones and active Quaternary faults. However, field to Cairo-Suez zone
and EL Alamein faults were carried out as primary investigations in October 2015and
129
reconnaissance were conducted. Neverless, there is no problem to carry out detail field
measurements for the El Alamein active quaternary fault for the future perspective.
Secondly for paleotsunami study,

a) Field investigations are planned at the site of sinking Thonis Heracleion city, an
old Egyptian historical city located in the Canopic mouth of the Nile, 32 Km northeast from
the Alexandria coast. This city was supposedly flooded apparently following a major
tsunami
b) Complete the coring and previous investigations in other sites located from Kefr
Sabr to Salloum to determine a possible inundation of the historical tsunami inland along the
northern Egyptian coast.
c) Creating a possible worst scenario for the arrival time and height of tsunami
waves for the strategic projects constructed on the Egyptian coast such as the New El
Alamein city and the Egyptian nuclear power plant.
My recommendations are1) the minimum arrival time for the tsunami waves to
arrive at the Egyptian coast being 30 minute in case of the Eastern Hellenic arc scenario, and
66 minutes in case of Western Hellenic arc this leaves enough time to take protective
measures and send alarms to the civil defence and Egyptian coast and save people lives. The
following Table 8, Fig. 80 summarizes the data for decision makers. The warning messages
are requiring a close cooperation with the Turkish and Greek Centers of Tsunami studies
and are classified according to local, regional, basin-wide. For instance, according
to(Salamon et al., 2010) the messages may be related to local (NPRUUHJLRQDO-
400 km) or basin-ZLGH NP distances. In case of the Egyptian coastal zones, we
consider the east Hellenic arc (EHA) and Western Hellenic arc (WHA) are the regional
message of 100-400 km.
2) The whole subduction Hellenic zone represents a serious tsunami hazard for the
eastern Mediterranean and as evidence from tsunami deposits analyzed in this study. The
probable activation of the Hellenic arc or even the Cyprian arc with a major earthquakes
Mw >8 will generate a strong tsunami on the Egyptian coast. Therefore, the first step for
civil protection is in the preparation of the early warning system and evacuation plan for a
probable near future tsunami effects on the Egyptian coasts.
130
Table 8: Summary of the possible warning tsunami message, EHA and WHA are the most dangerous tsunami sources.
Tsunami Message Type

Depth Location Mw Tsunami Possible Compared Comments in the Egyptian coast
Potential Tsunami with
sources historical
Local Regional Basin Wide events
Off shore of Nile

Potential Delta (possible PLQXWHV¶DUULYDOWLPHRIWKHLQLWLDOZDYH
7 ± 7.5 Destructive Watch Advisory Information simulated None of 2.3 m wave height at Ras at Tin
local volume 41 km3 37 PLQXWHV¶ arrival time of intail wave of
tsunami simulated land 4.0 at Rasheed Yalciner et al. (2014)
slide)
Cyprus Arc 11 May 1222 0.6 m wave height of the initial arrival
Potential time 66 minutes Hassan (2013)
Destructive
EHA, WHA,
7.5-8.0 for regional Watch Watch Advisory
< 100 Under the Cyprus, Egyptian 24 June 1870 Only historical information of wave at the
Tsunami
Km Sea continental Alexandria harbour
margin
Potential for 8 August 7-10 m wave height of arrival time wave
a very EHA 1303 33 minutes intial arrive at Egyptian coast
>8 Destructive Watch Watch Watch (This study)
Regional 21 July 365 1.7 m wave height of arrival time wave of
Tsunami WHA 66 minutes at the Egyptian coast (This
study )
Inland >7.0 No potential Information Information Information -------- ------- ----

tsunami
>100 Under sea >7.0 No

km or in land potential Information Information Information ------- ------- ------
tsunami
131
Fig . 80: The message types in case of local, regional, basin-wide with earthquakes magnitude.
132
REFERENCES
Abdel Aal, A. and A.R. Moustafa (1988). Structural framework of the Abu Gharadig
basin, Western Desert, Egypt. Proceedings of the 9th Exploration Conference,
Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, Cairo.
Abdel Aal, A.; Day, R. and Lelek, J. (1992). Structural evolution and styles of the northern
Sinai, Egypt. 11th Exploration & Production Conference, Egyptian General
Petroleum Corporation, Cairo, Egypt, p. 547-562.
Abdel Aal, A., Price, R.J., Vaital, J.D., Sharallow, J.A., (1994). Tectonic evaluation of
the Nile Delta, its impact on sedimentation and hydrocarbon potential. In: EGPC
12th Exploration and Production Conference, Vol. 1, p.19±34.
Abdel Aal, A., El Barkooky, a., Gerrits, M., Meyer, H., Schwander, M., and Zaki, H.,
(2000). Tectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin and its significance
for hydrocarbon prospectivity in the ultradeepwater of the Nile Delta: The Leading
Edge, Vol. 19, p. 1086, doi: 10.1190/1.1438485.
Abd El-Aal, A.K. (2008), Simulating time-histories and pseudo-spectral accerela- tions
from the 1992 Cairo earthquake at the proposed El-Fayoum New City site, Egypt,
Acta Geophys. Vol.56 ,no. 4, p.1025-1042.
Abdel Fattah, A. K., Hussein, H.M. and El Hady, S., (2006). Another look at the 1993
and 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake from the analysis of teleseismic waveforms.
Acta Geophysica, Vol.54, no.3, p.260-279.
AFattah, A.K., H.M. Hussein, E.M. Ibrahim and A.S. Abu El Atta³)DXOWSODQH
solutions of 1993 and 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquakes and their tectonic
LPSOLFDWLRQV´$QQDOLGL*HRILVLFD ,Vol. 40, no. 6, p. 1555-1564.
Abdel-Fattah, R., (1999). Seismotectonic Studies on the Gulf of Suez Region, Egypt. M.Sc.
Thesis. Fac. of Sci., Geology Dept. Mansoura Univ.
Abdel-Fattah, A.K., Badawy, A., and Kim, K.Y., (2007). Normal faulting mechanisms in
the Western Desert of Egypt: Journal of Seismology, Vol. 11, p. 27±38, doi:
10.1007/s10950-006-9025-z.
Abou Elenean, K.M., (1997), Seismotectonics of Egypt in relation to the Mediterranean

and Red Sea tectonics. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Sci. Ain Shams Univ., Egypt.
Abou Elenean, K., Arvidsson, R. and Kulhanek, O., (2004). Focal mechanism of smaller
earthquakes close to VBB Kottamia station, Egypt. Annals of the Geological Survey
of Egypt, XXVII, p.357-368.
133
Abou Elenean, K. M. (2007), Focal mechanisms of small and moderate size earthquakes
recorded by the Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN), Egypt, NRIAG J.
Geophys., Vol. 6, no. 1, p.119±153.
Abou Elenean, K. M. and Hussein, H. M. (2007): Source mechanism and source

parameters of May 28, 1998 earthquake, Egypt, J. Seismol.,Vol. 11, p.259±274.
Abu al-Fida Ismail Ibn Hamwi (born 1273 ± died 1331), (1329). The Concise History of
Humanity or Chronicles (in Arabic), 2 volumes, pp.1112, Dar El Kutub El Illmiyah
(DKI), Beirut, ISBN: 2745104497
Aigner, T. and Reineck, H.E., (1982). Proximality trends in modern storm sands from the
Helgoland Bight (North Sea) and their implications for basin analysis.
Senckenbergiana maritima, Vol.14 no.5, p.183-215.
Aksu, A. E., Hall, J. & Yaltirak, C. (2005). Miocene to Recent tectonic evolution of the
Eastern Mediterranean: new pieces of the old Mediterranean puzzle. Marine
Geology, Vol. 221, p. 1±440.
Abd-Allah, A. M. A. (2009) Surface structural investigation of North Western Desert,

Egypt, Internal geology report NRIAG, pp.34
Al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din (15th cent.) Kashf al-salsala µan wasf al-zalzala. Abd al-Latif
6D¶DGDQLHG)H] (1971). Also B: BM MS Or.5852, 1768; P: BNP MSS Ar.5929,
(1706); C: Cairo NM MS N324; CB: Cambridge Or.8.172, (1760); L: Lahore
BMOpuscula 14521.c.37, 1890; for a recent translation in Russian see Buniyatov
1983.
Ambraseys , N., (1962). Data for the investigation of the seismic sea waves in the Eastern
Mediterranean. « Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., », Vol.52, no. 4, p. 895-913.
Ambraseys, N.N., Melville, C.P. and Adams, R.D., (2005). The seismicity of Egypt,
Arabia and the Red Sea: a historical review. Cambridge University Press.pp.181
Ambraseys, N., (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A

Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900, pp. 947 , Cambridge University
Press, ISBN: 9780521872928.
Angelier, J. (1979). Determination of the mean principal directions of stresses for a given
fault population, Tectonophysics, Vol.56, p.17-26.
Angelier, J., (1984).Tectonic analysis of fault slip data sets. J. Geophys. Res. 89, p. 5835±
5848.
Angelier, J. (1989). From orientation to magnitudes in paleostress determinations using

fault slip data. Journal of Structural Geology, Vol.11, p. 37±50, doi: 10.1016/0191-
8141(89)90034-5.
Angelier, J., (1991). Inversion directe de recherche 4-D: comparaison physique et mathéma-
tique de deux méthodes de détermination des tenseurs des paléocontraintes en
tectonique de failles. C.R. Acad Sci., Paris. Vol.312 no.2, p.1213±1218.
134
Arsenikos, S., Frizon de Lamotte, D., Rooke, N.C., Mohn, G., Bonneau, M. C.,
Blanpied, C., (2013). Mechanism and timing of tectonic inversion in Cyrenaica
/LE\D,QWHJUDWLRQLQWKHJHRG\QDPLFVRIWKH(DVW0HGLWHUUDQHDQ¶7HFWRQRSK\VLFV
Elsevier B.V., Vol.608, p. 319±329. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2013.09.025.
ArcGIS Desktop ESRI (2014). Release v. 10.2 Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems
Research Institute.(http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/).
Badawy, A., Horvath, F., (1999). Recent stress field of the Sinai subplate region.
Tectonophysics Vol.304,p. 385±403.
Badawy, A. (2001). The present-day stress field in Egypt. Ann. Geofis., Vol. 44, p. 557-
570.
Bellahsen, N., C. Faccenna, F. Funiciello, J. M. Daniel, and L. Jolivet (2003), Why did
Arabia separate from Africa? Insights from 3-D laboratory experiments, Earth and
Plan Sci. Lett., Vol.216, p. 365±381, doi:10.1016/ S0012-821X(03)00516-8.
Ben Menahem, A. (1979), Earthquake catalogue for the Middle East (92 B.C. to 1980 A.D.)
Bol. Geof. Teor.ed Applic., Vol.2I, p.245-310.
Ben-Avraham, Z., (1985). Structural framework of the gulf of Elat (Aqaba), northern Red
Sea, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., Vol.90, p.703±726.
Ben-Avraham, Z., Kempler, D. & Ginzburg, A., (1988). Plate convergence in the Cyprian
Arc, Tectonophysics, Vol.146, p. 231±240.
Benetatos, C., Kiratzi, A., Papazachos, C., and Karakaisis, G., (2004). Focal
mechanisms of shallow and intermediate depth earthquakes along the Hellenic Arc:
Vol. 37, p. 253±296, doi: 10.1016/j.jog.2004.02.002.
Billi, A., C. Faccenna, O. Bellier, L. Minelli, G. Neri, C. Piromallo, D. Presti, D.

Scrocca, and E. Serpelloni (2011). Recent tectonic reorganization of the Nubia-
Eurasia convergent boundary heading for the closure of the western Mediterranean,
Bull. la Soc. Geol. Fr., Vol. 182 no.4, p. 279±303, doi:10.2113/gssgfbull.182.4.279
Bohnhoff, M., Harjes, H.P., and Meier, T., (2005). Deformation and stress regimes in the
Hellenic subduction zone from focal mechanisms: Journal of Seismology, Vol. 9, p.
341±366, doi: 10.1007/s10950-005-8720-5.
Borrero, J.C., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M. and Synolakis, C.E., (2006). Tsunami inundation
modeling for western Sumatra. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Vol..103 no.52, p.19673-19677.
Bosworth, W. (2008). North Africa-Mediterranean present-day stress field transition and

implications for fractured reservoir production in the eastern Libya basins, Geol. East
Libya Vol.4, p.123±138.
Bosworth, W. and Taviani, M. (1996). Late Quaternary reorientation of stress field and
extension direction in the southern Gulf of Suez, Egypt: Evidence from uplifted coral
135
terraces, mesoscopic fault arrays, and borehole breakouts. Tectonics, Vol.15, p. 791-
802.
Bott, M. H. P. (1959). The mechanism of oblique-slip faulting. Geological Magazine,

Vol.96, p. 109-117.
Bourgeois, J., Pinegina, T. K., Titov, V., Landis, S., and Mann, C. (1999). Bathymetric
and topographic effects of the 1969 Ozernoi tsunami: runup evidence from tsunami
deposits at Stolbovaya, Kamchatka, Russia, Eos (Transactions, AGU), 80, 46, F751.
Bowman, S.(1990). Radiocarbondating, Berkeley : University of California Press ;

[London] : British Museum, ©1990,ISBN: 0-520-07037-2, pp.64.
Bertrand, S., Leroy, S., Cagatay, N., Doner, L., Sancar, U., Akcer, S., Yusal, F., Arz,
H., Fagel, N., Oncel, S., Costa, P.,Tomaz, V., Mehta, L., (2005). Sedimentology of
Hersek Lagoon, NW Turkey. Relationships with Tsunamis in the sea of Mamara,
project annual report, Brunel University West London, pp. 66
Bridge, J.S. (2008). Sedimentary features of tsunami deposits, Sedimentary Geology 211:
94.
Bronk Ramsey, C., (2001). Development of the radiocarbon calibration program:

Radiocarbon, Vol. 43, no. 2, p. 355±363.
Bronk Ramsey, C., (2009). Bayesian analysis of Radiocarbon Radiocarbon, Vol. 51, no. 1,
p. 337±360.
Bronk Ramsey, C., & Lee, S. (2013). Recent and Planned Developments of the Program
OxCal. Radiocarbon, Vol.55(2-3), p.720-730.
Burwell, D, Tolkova, E and Chawla A (2007) Diffusion and dispersion characterization of

a numerical tsunami model, Ocean Modelling,19.
Carey-Gailhardis, E. & Mercier, J. -L. (1987). A numerical method for determining the
state of stress using focal mechanisms of earthquake populations: application to
Tibetan teleseisms and micro seismicity of southern Peru. Earth and Planetary
Sciences Letters, Vol. 82, p. 165-179.
Cavazza,W., Roure, F.M., Spakman,W., Stampfli, G.M., Ziegler, P.A., (2004). The
TRANSMED Atlas. The Mediterranean region from crust to mantle geological and
geophysical framework. A Publication of the Mediterranean Consortiumfor the 32nd
International Geological Congress 2004, XXIV, Vol. 141, pp. 44.
Chagué-Goff, C. (2010): Chemical signatures of palaeotsunamis: A forgotten proxy? In:

Marine Geology Vol. 271, p. 67±71.
Chenet, P., Colletta, B., Letouzey, J., Desforges, G., Ousset, E. and Zaghloul, E., A.,
(1985). Décollement and extensional tectonics on the eastern margin of the Suez rift,
Symposium on Continental Extensional Tectonics, University of Durham, 1985,
abstr. 24.
136
Cisternas, M., Atwater, B.F., Torrejón, F., Sawai, Y., Machuca, G., Lagos, M., Eipert,
A., Youlton, C., Salgado, I., Kamataki, T., Shishikura, M., Rajendran, C.P.,
Malik, J.K., Rizal, Y., et al., (2005). Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile
earthquake: Nature, Vol. 437, p. 404±407, doi: 10.1038/nature03943.
Cita, M.B., Camerlenghi, A., Rimoldi, B., (1996). Deep-sea tsunami deposits in the
eastern Mediterranean: new evidence and depositional models. Sedimentary Geology
Vo.l 104, p. 155±173.
Clague, J.J. and Bobrowsky, P.T., (1994). Tsunami deposits beneath tidal marshes on
Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
Vol.106 no.10, p.1293-1303.
Constantinescu, L., Ruprechtova, L. and Enescu, D., (1966). Mediterranean-Alpine

earthquake mechanisms and their seismotectonic implications. Geophysical Journal
International, Vol. 10 no.4, p.347-368.
Cook, H. E., Johnson, P. D., Matti, J. C. & Zemmels, I., (1975). Methods of sample
preparation and x-ray diffraction data analysis, x-ray mineralogy laboratory. In:
Kaneps, A. G. (Ed.), Initial reports of the DSDP 28, Washington DC, p.997-1007.
CMT catalogue: Centroid Moment Tensor catalogue of Harvard,

http://www.seismology.harvard.edusearch.html.
Dalal, N., Torab, M., (2013). Large boulders deposites on the coast of Ras El Hekma, NW,
Egypt. storm or tsunami. The 2nd international symposium on Kaz Mountains and
Edremit, May 2-4, Edremit-Balikesir- Turkey, pp.8.
Daggett, P.H., Morgan, P., Boulos, F.K., Hennin, S.F., El-Sherif, A.A., El-Sayed, A.A.,
Basta, N.Z. and Melek, Y.S., (1986). Seismicity and active tectonics of the
Egyptian Red Sea margin and the northern Red Sea. Tectonophysics, v.12 5 no.4,
p.313-324.
Dahanayake, K. and Kulasena, N., (2008). Geological evidence for paleo-tsunamis in Sri
Lanka. Science of Tsunami Hazards, Vol.27 no.2, p.54.
Dawson, A.G. and Shi, S., (2000). Tsunami deposits. Pure & Applied Geophysics, Vol.
157(6-8), p.875.
Dawson, S., Smith, D.E., Ruffman, A. and Shi, S., (1996). The diatom biostratigraphy of
tsunami sediments: examples from recent and middle Holocene events. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Vol.21(1-2), p.87-92
De Martini, P.M., Barbano, M.S., Pantosti, D., Smedile, A., Pirrotta, C., Del Carlo, P.,
and Pinzi, S., (2012). Geological evidence for paleotsunamis along eastern Sicily
(Italy): An overview: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 12, no. 8, p.
2569±2580, doi: 10.5194/nhess-12-2569-2012.
Delvaux, D., Moeys, R., Stapel, G. et al. (1997). Paleostress reconstructions and
geodynamics of the Baikal region, Central Asia. Part II: Cenozoic tectonics stress
and fault kinematics. Tectonophyscis, Vol.282 (1-4), p.1-38.
137
Delvaux, D. and Sperner, B. (2003), New aspects of tectonic stress inversion with
reference to the TENSOR program. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, Vol. 212, p. 75- 100 , DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.212.01.06.
Delvaux, D., and Barth, A., (2010), African stress pattern from formal inversion of focal
mechanism data: Tectonophysics, Vol. 482, p. 105±128, doi:
10.1016/j.tecto.2009.05.009.
Dominey-Howes, D.T.M., Papadopoulos, G.A. and Dawson, A.G. (2000), Geological and
historical investigation of the 1650 Mt. Columbo (Thera Island) eruption and
tsunami, Aegean Sea, Greece. Natural Hazards.
Dunbar, D., LeBlond, P.H.; Murty, T.S. (1989) Maximum tsunami amplitudes and
associated currents on the coast of British Columbia. Science of Tsunami Hazards
Vol. 7, p. 3-44.
Dupin, J. -M., SASSI, W. & Angellier, J. (1993). Homogeneous stress hypothesis and
actual fault slip: a distinct element analysis. Journal of Structural Geology, Vol.15,
p.1033-1043
Egyptian National seismic network (ENSN) Bulletin (1998-2004). Earthquakes in and

around Egypt. National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG),
Egypt.
El-Bastwasy, M.A., (2008). The Use of Remote Sensing and GIS for Catchments
Delination in Northwestern Coast of Egypt: An Assessment of water Resources and
Soil Potential., Egypt J Remote Sensing Space Sci, p. 3-16.
Emad Mohamed, K., Hassoup, A., Abou Elenean, K.M., Adel Othman, A.A., Diaa-
Eldin Hamed, M.K., (2015). Earthquakes focal mechanism and stress field pattern
in the northeastern part of Egypt. NRIAG J. Astron. Geophys. Vol.4, p. 205±221.
El-Sayed, A., Korrat, I., and Hussein, H. M., (2004). Seismicity and seismic hazard in
Alexandria (Egypt) and its surroundings. Pure Appl. Geophys.,Vol. 161, p.1003±
1019,589 doi:10.1007/s00024-003-2488-8.
EMRA Egyptian Mineral Resource map (2008), unpublished geological, personal contact
with Mohamed M. Masnour (Director of regional geology department in Egyptian
mineral resources authority)
EMSC. Eastern Mediternean seismological center, https://www.emsc-csem.org/#2
ETOPO1 1 min arc-minute global relief model of Earth's surface;
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/.
Folk, R.L. and Ward, W.C., (1957). Brazos River bar: a study in the significance of grain
Folk, R.L.,(1968), Petrology of sedimentary rocks, in Austin, Texas (HemphilPs Book
Store). Journal of Sedimentary Research, Vol. 27(1).
Font, E., C. Nascimento, M.A. Baptista & P.F. Silva (2010): Identification of tsunami -
induced deposits using numerical modelling and rock magnetism techniques: A
138
study case of the 1755 Lisbon tsunami in Algarve, Portugal. In: Physics of the Earth
and Planets Interiors Vol.182, p. 187±198.
Frieslander, U. (2000). The structure of the Dead Sea transform emphasizing the Arava,
using new geophysical data [in Hebrew, English Abstract], PhD thesis, pp. 43±53,
Hebrew Univ., Jerusalem, Israel.
Fuhrman, D.R and Bingham, H.B. (2004). Numerical solutions of fully non-linear and
highly dispersive Boussinesq equations in two horizontal dimensions, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol.44, p.231±255.
Galanopoulos, A.G., (1957). The seismic sea-wave of 9 Iouliou 1956. Praktika Academy
Athens, Vol. 32, p. 90±101 (in Greek with Engl. abstr.).
Garfunkel, Z. and Bartov, Y., (1977). The tectonics of the Suez Rift, Israel Geol. Surv.
Bull., Vol. 71, p.1- 44.
Garfunkel, Z., (1981). Internal structure of the Dead Sea leaky transform (rift) in relation
to plate kinematics. Tectonophysics Vol.80, p.81±108.
Garfunkel, Z., (2004). Origin of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin: a reevaluation.
Tectonophysics Vol. 391, p. 11±34.
Garziglia, S.,Migeon, S., Ducassou, E., Loncke, L.,Mascle, J., (2008). Mass transport
deposits on the Rosetta province (northwest Nile deep-sea turbidite system, Egyptian
margin): characteristics, distribution and potential causal processes. Marine Geology
Vol. 250, p. 180±198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2008.01.016.
Gaullier, V., Mart, Y., Bellaiche, G., Mascle, J., Vendeville, B., Zitter, T. The Second
Leg PRISMED II Scientific Party, (2000). Salt tectonics in and around the Nile
Deep-Sea Fan: insights from PRISMED II cruise. In: Vendeville, B., Mart, Y.,
Vigneresse, J.-L. (Eds.), Salt, Shale and Igneous Diapirs in and Around Europe,
Special Publications, Vol. 174. Geological Society, London, p. 111±129.
GEBCO,(2014). Digital Atlas published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on
behalf of IOC and IHO, Bathymetry data 30 arc second.
Gelfenbaum, G. and Jaffe, B., (2003). Erosion and sedimentation from the 17 July, 1998
Papua New Guinea tsunami. In Landslide Tsunamis: Recent Findings and Research
Directions p. 1969-1999. Birkhäuser Basel.
Gephart, J. W., and D. W. Forsyth, (1984). An Improved Method for Determining the
Regional Stress Tensor Using Earthquake Focal Mechanism Data - Application to
the San-Fernando Earthquake Sequence, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 89, p. 9305-9320.
Gerardi, F. et al. (2012). Geological Record of Tsunami Inundations in Pantano Morghella
(South-Eastern Sicily) Both from near and Far-)LHOG6RXUFHV´1DWXUDO+D]DUGVDQG
Earth System Sciences 12:1185±1200.
Gergawi, A. and El-Khashab, H.M.A. (1968). Seismicity of Egypt, Helwan Observatory
Bull., Vol.76.
Geological map of Libya (1985).http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?pageid=143
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/startseite/
139
Goto C., Ogawa Y., Shuto N., Imamura N. (1997): Numerical method of tsunami
simulation with the leap-frog scheme (IUGG/IOC Time Project), IOC Manual,
UNESCO No 35.
Guidoboni, E., (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up to
the 10th century, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica Rome, pp.504 .
Guidoboni, E., and A. Comastri (2005). Catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis in the
Mediterranean area from the 11th to the 15th century, INGV-SGA, Bologna, 1037
pp.
Gunatilake, A. (2005) The Indian Ocean megatsunami of December 2004: the scientific
basis of the Catastrophe. Journal of National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka, Vol.
33,p. 69-80
Guidoboni, E. and J. E. E. (2009) Guidoboni, E. and J. E. Ebel. Cambridge University
Press.pp.584 doi: 978-0-521-83795-8.
Hamouda, A.Z. (2002), Tsunami data base of the Eastern Mediterranean, Bull. Nat. Inst.
Oceanogr. Fish. Vol. 28,p. 437-452.
Hamouda, A.Z. (2006), Numerical compuations of 1303 tsunamigenic propagation towards
Alexandria, Egyptian coast, J. African Earth Sciences 44, 37-44, DOI:
10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.11.005
Hamouda, A.Z., (2009). A reanalysis of the AD 365 tsunami impact along the Egyptian
Mediterranean coast, ActaGeophysica, Vol. 58, no. 4, p. 687±704, doi:
10.2478/s11600-009-0032-7.
Hampton, M.A., Lee H.J. and Locat, J. (1996) Submarine Landslides. Reviews of
Geophysics, 34, pp33±59.
Hany Mohammed Hassan El Sayed, (2013), Impacts on Egyptian Coastal zones Eastern
Mediterranean Tsunamigenic Earthquakes and their Geology, Ms., El Azhar
University, faculty of science, geology department , Cairo, Egypt, pp.116.
Haraguchi T, Iwamatsu A (2011) Detailed maps of the impacts of the 2011 Japan tsunami:
Vol. 1: Aomori, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. Kokon-Shoin Publishers Ltd, Tokyo
Hartman, G., Niemi, T. M., Tibor, G., Ben-Avraham, Z., Al Zoubi, A., Makovsky,Y.,
Akawwi,E., Abueladas, A.-R., and Al Ruzouq, R., (2014). Quaternary tectonic
evolution of the Northern Gulf of Elat/Aqaba along the Dead Sea Transform, J.
Geophys. Res.Sol. Ea., Vol. 119, p. 9183±9205, doi:10.1002/2013JB010879.
Haslett, S.K., Bryant, E.A., 2007. Reconnaissance of historic (post-AD 1000) highenergy
deposits along the Atlantic coasts of southwest Britain, Ireland and Brittany, France.
Marine Geology Vol.242, p.207±220
Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Barth, A., Reinecker, J., Kurfeß, D., and Müller, B., (2010).
Global crustal stress pattern based on the World Stress Map database release 2008,
Tectonophysics, Vol. 482, p. 3±15, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.07.023.
Hofstetter A, Thio HK, Shamir G (2003). Source mechanism of the 22/11/95 gulf of
Aqaba Earthquake and its aftershock sequence. J Seismol Vol.7, p.99±114.
Huntley, D. J. and Clague, J. J., (1996). Optical dating of tsunami-laid sands. Quaternary
Research, Vol. 46 no.2, p.127-140.
140
Hussein, H.M., (1989). Earthquake activities in Egypt and adjacent regions and its relation
to geotectonic features in A.R.E. MSc. Thesis. Fac. of Sci., Geology Dept.,
Mansoura University, Egypt.
Hussein, H., Korrat, I.M and Abdel Fattah, A. K., (1996). The October 12, 1992 Cairo
earthquake a complex multiple shock. Bull. Int. Inst. Seis. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 30,
p.9-21.
Hussein, H.M., (1999). Source process of October 12, 1992 Cairo earthquake. Ann. Geofis.
Vol. 42 no.4, p.665±675.
Hussein, H.M., Korrat, I.M., El Sayed, A., (2001). Seismicity in the vicinity of Alexandria
and its implications to seismic Hazard. In: Second International Symposium on
Geophysics, 19±20 February 2001. Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta, p.
57±64.
Hussein, H, M., Abu Elenean, K. M., (2008). Source parameters of the significant
earthquakes in Egypt, 1992-1998 inferred from P-waves magnitude spectra of
teleseismic seismograms. Geofizika journal, Vol. 25, no.1, p.1-26.
Hussein, H.M., Abou Elenean, K.M., Marzouk, I.A., Korrat, I.M., Abu El-Nader, I.F.,
Ghazala, H., and ElGabry, M.N., (2013). Present-day tectonic stress regime in
Egypt and surrounding area based on inversion of earthquake focal mechanisms:
Journal of African Earth Sciences, Vol. 81, p. 1±15, doi:
10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2012.12.002.
Ibrahim, E.M. and Marzouk, I., (1979). Seismotectonic study of Egypt. Bull. Helwan Inst.
Astro. and Geophysics.
Imamura, F., (1997). Numerical Method of Tsunami Numerical Simulation with Leap-Frog
Scheme. Time Project. IUGG/ IOC, UNESCO, Paris
IRIS . Incorporated ReserchInstitutation for seismology, http://ds.iris.edu/seismon.

Ishimura, Daisuke and Takahiro Miyauchi. (2015). Historical and Paleo-Tsunami
Deposits during the Last 4000 Years and Their Correlations with Historical Tsunami
Events in Koyadori RQWKH6DQULNX&RDVW1RUWKHDVWHUQ-DSDQ´3URJUHVVLQ(DUWKDQG
Planetary Science Vol.2 no.1-16. Retrieved
(http://www.progearthplanetsci.com/content/2/1/16).
Ismail, A., (1960). Near and local earthquakes at Helwan from 1903-1950, Helwan
Observatory Bull. No. 49.
Jackson J, McKenize D. (1984). Active tectonics in the Alpine± Himalayan belt between
western Turkey and Pakistan. Geophys J R Astron Soc Vol. 77, p.185±246.
-DJRG]LĔVNL5%6WHUQDO:6]F]XFLĔVNL 6/RUHQF (2009). Heavy minerals in 2004
tsunami deposits on Kho Khao Island, Thailand. In: Polish Journal of Environmental
Studies Vol.18 no.1, p. 103±110.
Jones, J. O. (1925). A method for determining thr degree of humification of soil organic
matter, jour.AGR. SCI. [ENGLAND] VOL..15, P. 26-29.
Kebeasy, R.M., Maamoun, M., Ibrahim, E., Megahed, A., Simpson, D.W., Leith, W.S.,
(1987). Earthquake studies at Aswan reservoir. J. Geodyn. Vol. 7, p.173±193.
141
Kebeasy, R.M., (1990). Seismicity. In: R. Said (Eds). The Geology of Egypt, Balkema,
Rotterdam, p. 51-59.
Kelsey, H. M., A. R. Nelson, E. Hemphill-Haley, and R. C. Witter (2005), Tsunami
history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on
the Cascadia subduction zone, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.,Vol. 117, p. 1009±1032.
Kempler, D. and Garfunkel, Z., (1994). Structures and kinematics in the northeastern
Mediterranean: a study of an irregular plate boundary. Tectonophysics,Vol. 234(1-2),
pp.19-32.
Kench, P. S., R. F. McLean, R. W. Brander, S. L. Nichol, S. G. Smithers, M. R. Ford,
K. E. Parnell and M. Aslam, (2006). Geological effects of tsunami on mid-ocean
atoll islands: The Maldives before and after the Sumatran tsunami. Geology, Vol.34,
p. 177-180.
Khater, M. (1992). Reconnaissance report on the Cairo, Egypt Earthquake of October 12,
1992. Technical Report NCEER-92-0033, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Kokinou, E., Moisidi, M., Tsanaki, I.,Tsakalaki, E.,Tsiskaki, E., Sarris, A., Vallianatos,
F., (2008). A seismotectonic study for the Heraklion basin in Crete (Southern
Hellenic Arc, Greece), International Journal of Geology, ISSUE 1, Vol. 2, p.9-10.
Korrat, I.M., El Agami, N.L., Hussein, H.M., El-Gabry, M.N. (2005), Seismotectonics of
the passive continental margin of Egypt, Journal of African Earth Sciences Vol.41. p.
145±150.
Kortekaas, S. & A.G. Dawson (2007). Distinguishing tsunami and storm deposits: An
example from Martinhal, SW Portugal. In: Sedimentary Geology Vol.200, p.208±
221.
Kurian N. P., P. Abilash P. Pillai, K. Rajith, B. T. Murali Krishnan and P.
Kalaiarasan, (2006). Inundation characteristics and geomorphological impacts of
December 2004 tsunami on Kerala coast. Current Science, Vol.90 no.2, p. 240-249
Lavigne, F., C. Gomez, M. Giffo, P. Wassmer, C. Hoebreck, D. Mardiatno, J. Prioyono
and R. Paris, R., (2007). Field Observations of the 17 July 2006 tsunami in Java.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., Vol.7, p.177-183
Le Pichon, X., Gaulier, J.-M., (1988). The rotation of Arabia and the Levant fault system.
Tectonophysics Vol.153, p. 271±294.
Loncke, l., Gaullier, V., Mascle, J., Vendeville, B., (2002). Shallow structure of the Nile
Deep Sea Fan: Interactions between structural heritage and salt tectonics;
consequences on sedimentary dispersal. CIESM workshop Meditteranean and Black
Sea Turbidite systems and Deep Sea Fans, Bucharest, p.5±8 .
Luis, J.F., (2007). Mirone: A multi-purpose tool for exploring grid data: Computers and
Geosciences, Vol. 33, p. 31±41, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.05.005.
Maamoun, M., (1976). La seismicite du Moyen et du proche- orient dans le cadre de la
seismotectonique mondiale, These-Doct. Es Science, univ. Louis Pasteur de
Strasbourg, France.
Maamoun M, Ibrahim E M (1978). Tectonic acti vity in Egypt as indicated by eart
hquakes. Helwan Observatory Bull. No. 170, Helwan.
142
Maamoun, M., Allam, A., Megahed, A. and El Ata, A., (1980). Neotectonic and seismic
regionalization of Egypt, Bull. Int. Instr. Seismol. Earthquake Eng. (Cairo), Vol.18,
p. 27-39.
Maamoun, M., Megahed, A. and Allam, A., (1984). Seismicity of Egypt: NRIAG Bull.,
IV (B), p. 109±160.
Maamoun, M., Megahed, A., Ibrahim, E., (1993). Detailed Studies of 12 October, 1992
Earthquake (Unpublished, Report, NRIAG)
Madder, C. L., (2004). Numerical Modeling of Water Waves. Second ed.CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 288.
Madsen, H.B., Bingham, and Liu, H. (2002) A new Boussinesq method for fully nonlinear
waves from shallow to deep water, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.462, p.1±30.
Mahmoud, S., R. Reilinger, S. McClusky, P. Vernant, and A. Tealeb (2005). GPS
evidence for northward motion of the Sinai block: Implications for E. Mediterranean
tectonics, Earth and Plan. Sci. Lett., Vol.238, p.217-227.
Mahmoud, Y., F. Masson, M. Meghraoui, Z. Cakir, A. Alchalbi, H. Yavasoglu, O.
Yönlü, M. Daoud, S. Ergintav, S. Inan, (2013), Kinematic study at the junction of
the East Anatolian fault and the Dead Sea fault from GPS measurements, Journal of
Geodynamics Vol.67, p. 30± 39.
Malik, J.N., Banerjee, C., Khan, A., Johnson, F.C., Shishikura, M., Satake, K., and
Singhvi, A.K., (2015). Stratigraphic evidence for earthquakes and tsunamis on the
west coast of South Andaman Island, India during the past 1000years:
Tectonophysics, Vol. 661, p. 49±65, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.07.038.
Maouche, S., Morhange, C. and Meghraoui, M., (2009). Large boulder accumulation on
the Algerian coast evidence tsunami events in the western Mediterranean. Marine
Geology, Vol.262 no.1, p.96-104
Mascle, J., Benkhelil, J., Bellaiche, G., Zitter, T., Woodside, J., Loncke, L. (2000). The
PRISMED II Scientific Party (including V. Gaullier), Marine geological evidences
for a Levantine-Sinai plate, a missing piece of the Meditteranean puzzle. Geology
Vol. 28 no.9, p. 779± 782.
Matsutomi, H., N. Shuto, F. Imamura and T. Takahashi (2001). Field Survey of the
1996 Irian Jaya earthquake tsunami in Biak Island. Natural Hazards,Vol. 24,p. 199±
212.
Mcclusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gurkan,
O., Hamburger, M., Hurst, K., Kahle, H., Kastens, K., Kekelidze, G., King, R.,
Kotzev, V., (2000). Global Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and
dynamics in the eastern TM , Vol. 105, p. 5695±5719.
McClusky, S., Reilinger, R., Mahmoud, S., Ben Sari, D. and Tealeb, A., (2003). GPS
constraints on Africa (Nubia) and Arabia plate motions. Geophysical Journal
International, Vol.155 no.1, p.126-138.
McKenzie, D. P. (1972). Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophysical Journal
Royal Astronomical Society Vol. 30, p.109-l 85.
MED_RCMT. MedNet Regional Moment Centroid Moment Tensors,
http://www.ingv.it/seismoglo/RCMT.
143
Megahed, A and Dessokey, M.M.(1988). The Isamailyia (Egypt) earthquake of January
2nd, location, macroseismic survey, radiation pattern of the first motion and its
tectonics. Bull. ISSEE, Vol.23, p.143-153
Meghraoui, M., Pondrelli, S., (2012). Active faulting and transpression tectonics along the
plate boundary in North Africa. Ann. Geophys. Vol.55 (5), pp.5, http://dx.doi.org/
10.4401/ag-4970.
Mercier, J.L., Carey-Gailhardis, E., Sébrier, M., Stein, S., Mercier, J.L., Hancock, P.
and England, P., (1991). Palaeostress determinations from fault kinematics:
Application to the neotectonics of the Himalayas-Tibet and the Central Andes.
Philosophical Transactions: Physical Sciences and Engineering, pp.41-52.
Meshref, W.M., (1990). Tectonic framework of Egypt. In the geology of Egypt edited by
Rushdi Said, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, p. 133-155
Minoura, K., F. Imamura, T. Takahashi and N. Shuto, (1997). Sequence of
sedimentation processes caused by the 1992 Flores tsunami; evidence from Babi
Island. Geology, Vol.25, p. 523-526
Mori, N., Takahashi, T., Yasuda, T. and Yanagisawa, H. (2011) Survey of 2011 Tohoku
earthquake tsunami inundation and run-up. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L00G14.
Mosconi, A., A. Rebora, G. Venturino, P. Bocc, and M. H. Khalil (1996). Egypt±Nile
Delta and North Sinai Cenozoic tectonic evolutionary model: A proposal, Production
Conference, Cairo, Egypt, Vol. I, p. 203±223.
Mosher, D.C., Austin, J.A., Fisher, D. and Gulick, S.P.S. (2008) Deformation of the
northern Sumatra accretionary prism from high-resolution seismic reflection profiles
and ROV observations. Marine Geology, Vol. 252, p.89-99.
Moustafa, A.R. and Khalil, M.H. (1989): North Sinai structures and tectonic evolution.
M.E.R.C. Ain Shams University Earth Sciences Series, Vol. 3, p. 215-231.
Moustafa, A.R. and Khalil, M.H. (1990), Structural characteristics and tectonic evolution
of north Sinai fold belts. In R. Said "Geology of Egypt". A.A. Balkema , Rotterd
Brookfield, p. 381-389.
Moustafa, A., Abd-Allah, A., (1992). Transfer zones with en echelon faulting at the
northern end of the Suez rift. Tectonics Vol.11, p.499±509.
Moustafa, A. R. (1993). Structural characteristics and tectonic evolution of the east-margin
blocks of the Suez rift. Tectonophysics, Vol.223, p. 381-399.
Moustafa, A. and Khalil, M. (1994). Rejuvenation of the eastern Mediterranean passive
continental margin in northern and central Sinai; new data from the Themed Fault,
Gel.Mag., Vol.p.435-448.
Moustafa, A. R. & Khalil, M. H. (1995). Superposed deformation in the northern Suez rift,
Egypt: relevance to hydrocarbons exploration. Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol.
18, p. 245-266
Moustafa, A.R. (1995). Internal structure and deformation of an accommodation zone in the
northern of the Suez rift and Red Sea. Journal of structural geology, Vol.18, p.93-
107.
144
Moustafa, S., (2002). Assessment of ground motion variation for seismic hazard mitigation
in the vicinity of Cairo metropolitan area, Ph.D. thesis, Ain Shams Univ. Cairo,
Egypt.
Myers, E.P. and Baptista, A.M., (1995). Finite element modeling of the July 12, 1993
Hokkaido Nansei-Oki tsunami. pure and applied geophysics, Vol.144 no.3, p.769-
801.
Nakata, T. and Kawana, T., (1995). Historical and prehistorical large tsunamis in the
southern Ryukyus, Japan. In Tsunami: Progress in Prediction, Disaster Prevention
and Warning, p. 211-221. Springer Netherlands.
Nanayama, F., Satake, K., Furukawa, R., Shimokawa, K., Atwater, B.F., Shigeno, K.,
and Yamaki, S., (2003). unusually large earthquakes inferred from tsunami deposits
along the Kuril trench: Nature, Vol. 424, no. 6949, p. 660±663, doi:
10.1038/nature01864.
Nandasena NAK, Paris R, Tanaka N (2011) Reassessment of hydrodynamic equations:
minimum flow velocity to initiate boulder transport by high energy events (storms,
tsunamis). Mar. Geol. Vol. 281, p.70±84.
Neev D, Hall JK, Saul J.M. (1982). The Pelusium megashear system across Africa and
associated lineament swarms. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/JB87Ib02P01015.
NEIC. National Earthquakes Information Center, http//neic.usgs.gov/,
http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regioanl/neic
Nishimura, Y. and Miyaji, N. (1995). Tsunami deposits from the 1993 Southwest Hokkaido
earthquake and the 1640 Hokkaido Ko- magatake eruption, northern Japan. In:
Tsunamis; 1992-1994, their generation, dynamics, and hazard, (Eds) Satake-Kenji
and Imamura-Fumihiko, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol.144, 3/4, p. 719±733.
Nocquet, J.M., (2012). Present-day kinematics of the Mediterranean: A comprehensive
overview of GPS results: Tectonophysics, Vol. 579, p. 220±242, doi:
10.1016/j.tecto.2012.03.037.
Obura, D., (2006). Impacts of the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Eastern Africa. Ocean &
Coastal Management, Vol.49 no.11, pp.873-888..
O'Handley, Robert C. (2000). Modern Magnetic Materials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.789,
ISBN 9780471155669.
Okada, Y., (1985). Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half space. The
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Vol. 75, p.1135±1154.
Orwig R.O. (1982). Tectonic framework of Northern Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean
region, 6th exploration and production conference, Vol. 1, p 193±202.
Ozel, M. N., Necmioglu, O., Yalciner, A.C., Kalafat, D., Mustafa, E. (2011). Tsunami
hazard in the Eastern Mediterraneanand its connected seas: Toward a Tsunami
warning center in Turkey, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 31,
Issue 4, April 2011, Pages 598±610.
Pagnoni, G., A. Armigliato, and S. Tinti ³6FHQDULR-Based Assessment of
%XLOGLQJV¶ 'DPDJH DQG 3RSXODWLRQ ([SRVXUH GXH WR (DUWKTXDNH-Induced Tsunamis
IRU WKH 7RZQ RI $OH[DQGULD (J\SW´ 1DWXUDO +D]DUGV DQG (DUWK 6\VWHP 6FLHQFHV
Vol.15, Isssue 12,2015,p.2669-2695.
145
Panagiotakis, C., Kokinou, E. and Vallianatos, F., (2008). Automatic $ P $-Phase Picking
Based on Local-Maxima Distribution. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol..4 no.68, pp.2280-2287.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Daskalaki, E., Fokaefs, A., and Giraleas, N., (2007). Tsunami
hazards in the Eastern Mediterranean: strong earthquakes and tsunamis in the East
Hellenic Arc and Trench system: Natural Hazards And Earth System Science, Vol. 7,
p. 57±64, doi: 10.5194/nhess-7-57-2007.
Papadopoulos GA, Gra`cia E, Urgeles R, Sallares V., (2014). Historical and pre-historical
tsunamis in the Mediterranean and its connected seas: geological signatures,
generation mechanisms and coastal impacts. Mar Geol, Vol. 354, p. 81±109.
Papazachos, B., Kiratzi, A., Karacostas, B., Panagiotopoulos, D., Scordilis, E. and
Mountrakis, D.M., (1988). Surface fault traces, fault plane solution and spatial
distribution of the aftershocks of the September 13, 1986 earthquake of Kalamata
(Southern Greece). pure and applied geophysics, Vo.126 no.1, p.55-68.
Papazachos, B.C., (1990). Seismicity of the Aegean and the surrounding area.
Tectonophysics Vol.178, p.287±308.
Papazachos, B.C., 1996, Large seismic faults in the Hellenic arc: Annals of Geophysics,
Vol. 39, p. 891±903.
Paris, R., F. Lavigne, P. Wassmer, and J. Sartohadi. (2007). Coastal sedimentation
associated with the December 26, 2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga, West Banda Aceh
(Sumatra, Indonesia). Marine Geology Vol.238, p. 93±106.
Pecharsky, V.K. and P.Y. Zavalij, (2009). Fundamentals of Powder Diffraction and
Structural Characterization of Materials. 2009: Springer US., pp.713
Pietrantonio, G., Devoti, R., Mahmoud, S., and Riguzzi, F., (2016). Kinematics of the
Suez-Sinai area from combined GPS velocity field: Journal of Geodynamics, Vol.
102, p. 231±238, doi: 10.1016/j.jog.2016.10.003.
Pirazzoli, P.A., Ausseil-Badie, J., Giresse, P., Hadjidaki, E., Arnold, M., (1992).
Historical environmental changes at Phalasarna harbour,West Crete.
Geoarchaeology Vol.7, p.371±392.
Pirazzoli, P.A., J. Laborel, and S.C. Stiros (1996). Earthquake clustering in the East- ern
Mediterranean during historical times, J. Geophys. Res. Vol.101, p. 6083- 6097.
Poirier, J. P. & Taher, M.A., (1980). Historical seismicity in the near and middle east,
North Africa, and Spain from Arabic Documents (VIIth-XVIIIth Century): Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 70, p. 2185±2201.
Pollard, D. D., Saltzer, S. D. & Rubin, A. (1993). Stress inversion methods: are they based
on faulty assumptions? Journal of Structural Geology, Vol.15(8), p.1045-1054.
Polonia, A., Bonatti, E., Camerlenghi, A., Lucchi, R.G., Panieri, G., and Gasperini, L.,
(2013), Mediterranean megaturbidite triggered by the AD 365 Crete earthquake and
tsunami: Scientific Reports, 3: 1285, p.2045-2322, doi:10.1038/srep01285.
Power, W. L. (compiler). 2013. Review of Tsunami Hazard in New Zealand (2013
Update), GNS Science Consultancy Report 2013/131. pp. 222 .
146
Ramsay, J. G., Huber, M. I. and Lisle, R. J. µ7KH7HFKQLTXHVRI0RGHUQ6WUuctural
Geology: Applications of continuum mechanics in structural geology, Vol. 3, pp.
1061. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00270-0.
Raslan, S.M., (1995). Geomorpholiogical and hydrogeological studies on some localities
along the Northwestern Coast of Egypt,M.Sc. Menofia University, pp.172.
Reches, Z., (1987). Faulting of rocks in three-dimensional strain fields. II. Theoretical
analysis, Tecttonophysics, Vol. 95, p.133-156.
Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R.,
Ozener, H., Kadirov, F., Guliev, I., Stepanyan, R., Nadariya, M., Hahubia, G.,
Mahmoud, S., Sakr, K., et al., (2006). GPS constraints on continental deformation
in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the
dynamics of plate interactions: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol.
111, p. 1±26, doi: 10.1029/2005JB004051.
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G.,
Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M.,
Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G.,
Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W.,
Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney, C. S. M.,
van der Plicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. (2009). IntCal09 and Marine09
radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, Vol.51 no.
4, p. 1111-1150.
Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE,
Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas
I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning
SW, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Turney CSM, van der
Plicht J. (2013). Selection and treatment of data for radiocarbon calibration: an
update to the International Calibration (IntCal) criteria. Radiocarbon Vol.55 no.4, p.
1869-1887
Riad, S., A. Tealeb, S. Hadidy, N. Basta, A. Mohamed, M.A. Aziz, and H.A. Khalil
(2003), Ancient earthquakes from some Arabic sources and catalogue of Middle East
historical earthquakes, UNESCO pressed.
Richards, S., Lister, G. and Kennett, B. (2007) A slab in depth: Three-dimensional
geometry and evolution of the Indo-Australian plate. Geochemistry Geophysics
Geosystems, Vol. 8 no.12.
Richter'7RVWHYLQ*âNUGOD3DQG'DYLHV: (2009) New radiometric ages for the
Early Upper Palaeolithic type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic):
comparison of OSL, IRSL, TL and 14C dating results ,Journal of Archaeological
Science, Vol.36 no.3, p.708-720.
Rizzini, A., Vezzani, F., Coccetta, V., Milad, G., (1978). Stratig- raphy and sedimentation
of a Neogene±Quaternary section in the Nile delta area. Mar. Geol. Vol. 27, p. 327±
348
Robertson, A.H.F. and Dixon, J.E., (1984). Introduction: aspects of the geological
evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, Vol.17 no.1, p.1-74.
147
Robson, A., (1971). The structure of the Gulf of Suez (Clysmic) rift, with special reference
to the eastern side. J. Geol. Soc. Vol.127,p. 247±276.
Ross, D. A., and E. Uchupi, (1977). Structure and sedimentary history of southeastern
Mediterranean Sea±Nile Cone area:AAPGBul- letin, Vol. 61, no. 6, p. 872±902.
Rothaus, R.M., Reinhardt, E. and Noller, J., (2004). Regional considerations of coastline
change, tsunami damage and recovery along the southern coast of the Bay of Izmit
(the Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake of 17 August 1999). Natural Hazards, Vol.31 no.1,
p.233-252.
Said, R. (1962) Tectonic framework of Egypt. IN SAID, R. (Ed.) The Geology of Egypt.
Amsterdam, Elsevier. pp. 377.
Sakr, Mohamed A., Kamal A. El-sayed, and Enayat A. Awad. (2011). National Seismic
1HWZRUN DQG (DUWKTXDNH $FWLYLWLHV LQ (J\SW´ th International conference on
earthquake geotechanicalengineering,Chile pp.11
Salamon, A., Hofstetter, A., Garfunkel, Z., Ron, H., (2003). Seismotectonics of the Sinai
subplate²the eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys. J. Int. Vol.155, p.149± 173.
Saleh, M., Becker, M., (2013). A newvelocity field fromthe analysis of the Egyptian
Permanent GPS Network (EPGN). Arab. J. Geosci.Vol.7, Issue11, p.4665 - 4682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013- 1132-x.
Saleh, M., and Becker, M., (2015). New constraints on the Nubia-Sinai-Dead Sea fault
crustal motion: Tectonophysics, Vol. 651, p. 79±98, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.03.015.
Sandiford, M., Coblentz, D. and Schellart, W.P. (2005) Evaluating slab-plate coupling in
the Indo-Australian plate. Geology, Vol.33, p.113-116.
Sangode, S.J., Suresh, N., Bagati, (2001). Godavari source in the Bengal fan sediments:
Results from magnetic susceptibility dispersal pattern. Current Science Vol. 80 no.5,
p. 660-664.
Sato, H., T. Shimamoto, A. Tsutsumi, and E. Kawamoto. (1995). Onshore Tsunami
Deposits Caused by the 1993 Southwest Hokkaido and 1983 Japan Sea Earthquakes.
Pure and Applied Geophysics Vol. 144, p. 693±717.
Scordilis, E.M., Karakaisis, G.F., Karacostas, B.G., Panagiotopoulos, D.G.,
Comninakis, P.E., Papazachos, B.C., (1985). Evidence for transform Faulting in the
Ionian Sea: The Cephalonia Island earthquake Sequence of 1983. PAGEOPH,
Vol.123, p. 388±397
Sehim, A., Ismail, A., Mahmoud, R., (1992). Proposed structural model, Khalada West
Concession, Western Desert, Egypt. In: EGPC Eleventh Exploration & Production
Conference, November, 1992-Cairo, p. 79±97.
Selim, E. I. (2012). Subsurface structural trends of the offshoreNile Delta area, Egypt:
Evidences from gravity and magnetic data, Environ. Earth Sci. Vol. 68, no. 4, p.1015±
1032, doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1804-y.
Shah-Hosseini, M., Saleem, A., Mahmoud, A. and Morhange, C., (2016).Coastal boulder
GHSRVLWVDWWHVWLQJWRODUJHZDYHLPSDFWVRQWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQFRDVWRI(J\SW¶1DWXUDO
Hazards. Springer Netherlands, Vol. 83(2), p. 849±865. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-
2349-2.
148
Shaw, B., Ambraseys, N.N., England, P.C., Floyd, M. a., Gorman, G.J., Higham,
T.F.G., Jackson, J. a., Nocquet, J.-M., Pain, C.C., and Piggott, M.D., (2008).
Eastern Mediterranean tectonics and tsunami hazard inferred from the AD 365
earthquake: Nature Geoscience, Vol. 1, no. April, p. 268±276, doi: 10.1038/ngeo151.
Shepard, F. P., G. A. Macdonald and D. C. Cox, (1950). The tsunami of April 1, 1946
[Hawaii]. Calif. Univ., Scripps Inst. Oceanography Bull.,Vol. 5, p.391-528.
Sieberg A., (1932). Untersuchungenüber Erdbeben und Bruchschollenban im östlichen
Mittelmeergebiet. « Denkschriften der Medizinish-Natur- wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft zu Jena », vol. 2, Jena.
Sofratome Group (1984). El-Dabaa nuclear power plant, National Power Plant Authority
(NPPA), Ministry of Electricity, Egypt, Unpublished report.
Soloviev, S.L., Solovieva, O.N., Go, C.N., Kim, K.S., and Shchetnikov, N.A., (2000).
Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea 2000 B.C.-2000 A.D, pp. 237, Kluwer academic,
Dordrecht/ Boston/ London ISBN: 0-7923-6548-8.
Salamon, A., (2010), Potential tsunamigenic sources in the eastern Mediterranean and a
decision matrix for a tsunami early warning system in Israel, Report, pp.52.
Stampfli, G.M., Borel, G.D., Cavazza, W., Mosar, J. and Ziegler, P.A., (2001).
Palaeotectonic and palaeogeographic evolution of the western Tethys and PeriTethyan
domain (IGCP Project 369). Episodes 24 , p.222-228.
Steckler, M.S., Berthelot, F., Liberis, N., Le Pichon, X., (1988). Subsidence in the Gulf of
Suez: implications for rifting and plate kinematics. Tectonophysics Vol.153, p. 249±
270.
Stiros, S., Papageorigou, S., (2001). Seismicity of Western Crete and the destruction of the
town of Kisamos at AD365, archaeological evidence, Journal of Seismology, Vol.5,
p.381-397.
Stiros, S.C., (2001). The AD 365 Crete earthquake and possible seismic clustering during
the fourth to sixth centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: a review of historical
and archaeological data: Journal of Structural Geology, Vol.. 23, p. 545±562, doi:
10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00118-8.
Stiros, S.C., and A. Drakos (2006). A fault-model for the tsunami-associated, magnitude>
8.5 Eastern Mediterranean, AD 365 earthquake, Z. Geomorphol. Vol. 146, p. 125-137.
Stiros, S.C., (2010). The 8.5+ magnitude, AD365 earthquake in Crete: Coastal uplift,
topography changes, archaeological and historical signature: Quaternary International,
Vol. 216, p. 54±63, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2009.05.005.
6]F]XFLĔVNL:31LHG]LHOVNL*5DFKOHZLF]76REF]\ĔVNL$=LRáD$.RZDOVNL6
Lorenc and J. Siepak, (2005). Contamination of tsunami sediments in a coastal zone
inundated by the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Thailand. Environ. Geol., Vol.49, p.
321±331.
6]F]XFLĔVNL : 3 1LHG]LHOVNL / .R]DN 0 )UDQNRZVNL $ =LRáD DQG 6
Lorenc,(2007). Effects of rainy season on mobilization of contaminants from tsunami
deposits left in a coastal zone of Thailand by the 26 December 2004 tsunami. Environ.
Geol.,Vol. 53, p. 253-264.
149
Ten Brink, U. S., M. Rybakov, A. S. Al-Zoubi, M. Hassouneh, U. Frieslander, A. T.
Batayneh, V. Goldschmidt, M. N. Daoud, Y. Rotstein, and J. K. Hall (1999).
Anatomy of the Dead Sea Transform; does it reflect continuous changes in plate
motion?, Geology, Vol.27, p. 887±890.
Ten Brink, U. S., M. Rybakov, A. S. Al-Zoubi, and Y. Rotstein (2007), Magnetic
character of a large continental transform: An aeromagnetic survey of the Dead Sea
Fault, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 8, Q07005, doi:10.1029/2007GC001582.
Thenhaus, P.C., R.V. Sharp, M. Celebi, A.B.K. Ibrahim, and H. van de Pol (1993).
Reconnaissance report on the 12 October 1992 Dahshour, Egypt, Earth- quake, U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 93-181, Golden, CO.
Tingay, M., Bentham, P., de Feyter, A., and Kellner, A., (2011). Present-day stress-field
rotations associated with evaporites in the offshore Nile Delta: Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America, Vol. 123, p. 1171±1180, doi: 10.1130/B30185.1.
USAID (2005). United States Agency for International Development
Van den Bergh, G. D., W. Boer, H. de Haas, T. C. E. van Weering and R. van Wijhe,
(2003). Shallow marine tsunami deposits in Teluk Banten (NW Java, Indonesia),
generated by the 1883 Krakatau eruption. Mar. Geol., 197, 13-34.
Vasseur, G., Etchecopar, A., Philip, H., (1983). Stress state inferred from multiple focal
mechanisms. Ann. Geophys. Vol.1, p. 291±298.
Velioglu, D., R. Kian, A. C. Yalciner and A. Zaytsev,(2016), Performance Assessment of
NAMI DANCE in Tsunami Evolution and Currents Using a Benchmark Problem, J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4(3), 49; doi:10.3390/jmse4030049
Wang, P. & M.H. Horwitz (2007). Erosional and depositional characteristics of regional
overwash deposits caused by multiple hurricanes, Sedimentology Vol. 54, p. 545±564.
Wheatcroft, R. A. and J. C. Borgeld, (2000). Oceanic flood deposits on the northern
California shelf: large-scale distribution and small-scale physical properties. Cont.
Shelf Res., Vol.20, p. 2163-2190.
Yalciner, A., Zaytsev, A., Aytore, B., Insel, I., Heidarzadeh, M., Kian, R., and
Imamura, F., (2014). A Possible Submarine Landslide and Associated Tsunami at the
Northwest Nile Delta, Mediterranean Sea: Oceanography, Vol. 27, no. 2, p. 68±75,
doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2014.41.
Yousef, M. I. (1968). Structure pattern of Egypt and its interpretation. AAPG Bull. Vol.52
no.4, p.601-614.
Zahran, A.A., (2008). Geotechnical Study of Carbonate Rocks on the Area Between
Alexandria and El Alamein Along The Mediterranean Sea Coast of Egypt. Ass. Univ.
Bull. Environ. Res., Vol.11no.1, p.12.
ZUR_RMT. Zurich Moment Tensors, Swiss Seismological service, ETH-Honggerberg,
http//seismo.ethz.ch/info/mt.html.
150
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Focal mechanism and historical earthquakes
Appendix B: XRD Diffraction
Appendix C: Magnetic susceptibility
Appendix D: Grain size analysis
Appendix E: Radiocarbon dating samples calibrated
with Oxcal version 4.2
Appendix F:Theory and definitions
Appendix G:Paleotsunami deposits along the coast of Egypt correlate with
historical earthquake records of eastern Mediterranean
151
Appendix A : Focal mechanism and historical earthquakes
Table 1: The earthquakes events in Egyptian continental margin area
Magnitude ML
Serial Date Origin Time Longitude Latitude Depth Magnitude

no. (GMT)
1 19510130 23:07:24 32.4 33.4 0 5.1
2 19550912 6:09:24 29.8 32.9 33 6.7
3 19870429 04:37.6 30.5 31.7 33 4.6
4 19870409 00:04.6 28.97 32.39 10 4.6
5 19870102 10:14:46 30.48 32.22 24.1 3.9
6 19880609 2:18:24 27.9 32.23 10 4.8
7 19871214 21:50:59 30.72 31.69 10 3.9
8 19920522 23:10:44 30.18 32.01 8 4.1
9 19921105 18:41:49 29.69 30.97 16 4.6
10 19950908 12:13:22 29.7 32.23 13 4
11 19960221 4:59:57 29.03 31.37 15 5.3
12 19980528 18:33:28 27.64 31.45 22 5.5
13 19991011 20:39:34 28.65 31.54 12.1 4.9
14 20001216 142708.04 33.56 33.169 37.3 3.3
15 20000601 164438 29.99 32.58 6 2.8
16 20010612 12:43:26 29.62 31.12 0 4.1
17 20040325 24835 30.54 31.74 24.7 3.4
18 20121019 3:35:12 30.98 32.58 18 5.1
19 20130117 21:17:40 30.6 31.98 10 4.9
Table 2: The focal mechanisms parameters Egyptian continental margin

area

Plane 1 Plane 2 P-axis Taxis
Serial
Strike Dip Rake strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl. Tr. Pl. References
no.
Costantinescu et
1 295 64 -116 162 34 -24 168 60 42 17
al. (1966)
Costantinescu et
2 118 69 161 215 68 22 342 2 78 28
al. (1966)
CMT Harvard
3 326 40 -7 62 84.00 -5 303.8 8 212 0.7
solution
personal
4 112 70 157 210.26 68.46 21.57 120.3 21.54 22 22 communication
with Hussein
CMT Harvard
5 248 80 -170 156 80 -10.00 112 14 22 0
solution
152
Korrat et al.,
6 266 54 40 149 58 136 209 3 115 57
2005
CMT Harvard
7 197 40 -4 291 87.00 -130 167 35 52 30
solution
CMT Harvard
8 326 40 -7 62 85.00 -130 297 36 182 29
solution
9 337 48 -40 96 61.00 -130 315 54 214 9 Badawy (2001)
Abu Elenean et
10 123 29 -88 310 61.00 -91 217 73 41 16
al. (2004)
CMT Harvard
11 132 30 -104 328 61.00 -82 257 73 52 16
solution
Personal
12 333 43 87 333 43.07 87 67.2 42.93 243 47 communication
with Hesham
CMT Harvard
13 145 32 -28 259 75.00 -119 136 51 11 25
solution
14 93 73 -6 184.00 85 -163 50 16 318 8 MED- RCMT
15 3 54 -41 120.00 58 -137 333 52 241 2 ENSN
16 104 50 -107 309 43.00 -71 311 77 155 4 ENSN
17 315 48 -66 101.00 47 -114 297 72 28 0.4 ENSN
18 110 58 164 142.4 58 164 52.4 15.01 148.00 20 EMSC
19 56 56 164 155.1 76.79 35.06 65.1 13.21 326.00 34 EMSC

Table 3: The earthquakes events in Dahshour area ML
Serial no. Date Origin Time longitude latitude Depth Magnitude

(Y/M/D) (GMT)
1 19921012 13:09:59 30.63 29.74 22 5.9
2 19921022 17:38:58 31.108 29.621 10 4
3 19921104 16:29:39 31.133 29.716 19.6 3.5
4 19921105 18:41:51 31.133 29.682 16 4.2
5 19921105 18:46:05 31.101 29.661 20.9 3.6
6 19921105 19:16:47 31.133 29.671 20.74 3.9
7 19921106 2:42:03 31.133 29.7 18 3.7
8 19921107 1:35:03 31.133 29.666 21 3.5
9 19921110 11:17:19 31.133 29.656 17.8 4
10 19930310 19:26:52 31.124 29.726 18.16 3.8
11 19930504 20:56:51 31.123 29.68 21 3.7
12 19930513 8:38:26 31.086 29.687 21.7 3.7
13 19930613 6:16:09 31.116 29.671 17.6 3.9
14 20010612 12:43:26 31.12 29.62 31.12 4.1
15 20050731 16:14:37 31.12 29.67 22.7 4.2
16 20080621 17:59:47 30.6 29.8 6.2 4
17 20080602 17:59:46 30.66 29.73 6.67 4
18 20120216 2:15:00 30.68 29.73 4.11 3.6
19 20140728 8:09:00 30.6 29.77 4.33 3.5
153
Table 4: The focal mechanisms parameters of Dahshour area ML

Plane 1 Plane 2 P-axis T-axis
Serial strike dip rake strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl Tr. Pl. References
no.
1 284.2 65.96 -117.7 284.2 65.96 -117.7 155 59 34 16 NEIC
2 278.65 66.74 -107.81 137.78 28.88 -107.81 159 64 22 20 AbouElenean
(1997)
3 312.26 54.48 -59.38 86.72 45.54 -125.52 281 65 21 5 AbouElenean
(1997)
4 269.55 54.33 -120.79 135.17 45.74 -54.5 120 22 25 12 AbouElenean
(1997)
5 256.66 81.36 -150.22 161.74 60.59 -9.93 123 27 26 14 AbouElenean
(1997)
6 259.38 81.55 -145.54 163.62 55.97 -10.22 127 30 27 17 AbouElenean
(1997)
7 296.15 61.23 -65.99 73.38 36.80 -126.54 249 65 9 13 AbouElenean
(1997)
8 243.19 74.03 -121.46 128.97 34.91 -28.74 117 51 357 23 AbouElenean
(1997)
9 263.2 78.73 -138.05 163.24 49.04 -15 132 37 27 19 AbouElenean
(1997)
10 113.3 58.74 -79.88 274.32 32.70 -106.14 50 74 196 13 AbouElenean
(1997)
11 266.52 78.46 -154.67 171.11 65.22 -12.73 131 26 37 9 AbouElenean
(1997)
12 132.43 65.65 -64.73 263.57 34.53 -133.32 81 61 204 17 AbouElenean
(1997)
13 135.09 62.58 -50.41 254.2 46.84 -140.85 95 54 198 9 AbouElenean
(1997)
14 60.65 53.14 -96.61 251.59 37.37 -81.27 311 77 155 4 ENSN
15 117 21 -117 326 72 -80 250 62 48 26 Emad Mohamed
2010
16 303.12 80.47 -23.13 37.16 67.21 -169.11 258 23 352 9 Abdelazim et
al., (2016)
17 48 52 -133 285 55 -48 255 57 347 1 Emad Mohamed
(2010)
18 47 74 -160 311 71.00 -17 269 26 178 2 Badreldin,
(2016)
19 233 70 -165 233 70.00 -165 95 24 186 4 Badreldin,
(2016)
Table 5: The earthquakes events in Cairo-Suez area ML

no. (Y/M/D) (GMT)
1 19740429 20:04:38 30.5 31.7 33 4.6
2 19840329 21:36:06 30.18 32.1 10 4.6
154
3 19870102 10:14:46 30.48 32.22 24.1 3.9
4 19871214 21:05:09 30.72 31.69 10 3.9
5 19920522 23:10:44 30.18 32.01 8 4.1
6 19931024 5:28:44 30.54 32.205 12 3.4
7 19940928 9:38:37 30.65 32.8 23 3.7
8 19961111 16:01:57 30.31 32.25 6 3.8
9 19961112 3:17:52 30.5 32.25 6 3.9
10 19991228 12:05:10 30.24 31.46 15 3.5
11 20020824 20:01:21 30.14 31.35 19.5 3.5
12 20050416 19:55:13 29.63 31.88 6.4 4.2
13 20060225 1:50:08 27.9 33.3 9.7 4
14 20060609 2:10:09 32.03 27.1 21.73 3.6
15 20060303 20:59:17 27.14 33.19 19.53 3.5
16 20071030 14:43:28 31.81 29.78 20.4 3.8
17 20130325 12:40 29.0234 32.293 20.94 4.2
18 20130822 21:43 28.6846 32.3633 20.8 4.2
19 20130917 15:59 29.7381 31.366 6.5 3.73
Table 6: The focal mechanisms parameters of in Cairo-Suez area
Serial
Strike Dip Rake strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl Tr. Pl. References
no.
CMT Harvard
1 60.92 85.85 -130.02 326 40.20 -6.43 297 36 182 29
solution
CMT Harvard
2 54.59 86 152.47 146.67 62.55 4.51 104 16 7 22
solution
CMT Harvard
3 156.14 80.15 -10 247.86 80.15 -170 112 14 22 0
solution
CMT Harvard
4 290.52 87.04 -130.08 197 40.17 -4.6 167 35 52 30
solution
CMT Harvard
5 60.92 85.85 -130.02 326 40.20 -6.43 297 36 182 29
solution
AbouElenean et
6 90.24 54.25 -85.46 262.5 36.00 -96.28 19 80 177 9
al. (2004)
AbouElenean
7 117.05 84.90 -141.77 23.04 51.95 -6.49 347 30 244 22
(1997)
AbouElenean et
8 94.34 71.5 -89.57 272.98 18.51 -91.29 5 63 184 26
al. (2004)
155
AbouElenean et
9 341.56 38.44 -10.39 79.74 83.56 -127.98 316 39 199 28
al. (2004)
10 78.6 54.20 -119.37 302.49 45.03 -55.79 290 66 189 5 ENSN
11 298.93 54.93 -58.3 71.86 45.87 -126.81 267 64 7 5 ENSN
Abdelazim et al.
12 325.24 68.99 -64.09 91.67 32.90 -138.68 271 58 36 20
(2016)
Abdelazim et al.
13 141.57 51.41 -47.42 265.74 54.86 -130.29 116 58 23 2
(2016)
Emad
14 266 37.00 -99 97 53 -83.00 37 80 182 8 Mohamed,
(2010)
Abdelazim et al.
15 81.59 46.96 -151.48 331.24 69.57 -46.74 286 47 31 14
(2016)
Emad
16 134 62 -54.00 256 45.00 -139 93 56 199 10 Mohamed,
(2010)
17 295 38 -154 185 75.00 -55 132 48 249 22 Badreldin,(2016)
Badreldin,
18 243 60 -144 133 59.00 -35 99 46 8 1
(2016)
Badreldin,
19 184 84 177 274 87.00 6 49 2 139 7
(2016)
Table 7: The earthquakes events in Gulf of Aqaba areaML

no. (Y/M/D) (GMT)
1 19851231 19:42:41 34.9 29.13 9 4.8
2 19930703 23:34:10 34.821 28.864 18 4.7
3 19930803 12:43:05 34.553 28.729 17 6
4 19930803 16:33:24 34.08 28.36 15 5.7
5 19930807 4:55:40 34.626 28.612 10 4.2
6 19930820 23:09:59 34.612 28.72 2 4.6
7 19931103 18:39:32 34.65 28.7 7 4.9
8 19931108 1:06:02 34.65 28.69 8 4.7
9 19931204 23:34:11 34.799 28.886 10 4.6
10 19951122 4:15:26 34.73 29.07 18.4 7.2
11 19951122 12:47:04 34.74 29.3 15 5
12 19951122 22:16:57 34.21 28.32 15 5.2
13 19951123 18:07:26 34.48 29.31 15 5.7
156
14 19951124 16:43:46 34.74 28.97 10 4.9
15 19951211 1:32:08 34.75 28.92 19 5
16 19960103 10:05:26 35.248 28.604 10 4.8
17 19960108 13:18:00 34.82 29.38 6 3.8
18 19960116 6:17:00 34.73 29.34 6 4.3
19 19960204 7:23:00 34.94 29.45 6 3.6
20 19970510 23:01:48 34.61 28.28 10 4.9
21 20000308 14:22:25 34.695 28.77 7 4.9
22 20000406 6:37:34 34.83 28.78 12 4.8
23 20010207 3:39:00 35.01 29.26 21 4.2
24 20021110 5:09:45 34.62 28.23 16 3.9
25 20040922 12:00:23 34.6 28.45 10.3 3.2
26 20080404 14:05:20 34.75 28.78 6.8 3.7
27 20091229 6:28:44 34.78 28.71 10.9 3.6
28 20111021 16:36:41 34.74 28.52 8.2 4.2
29 20100715 11:25:00 34.846 34.846 22.27 4.4
30 20111021 12:37:00 34.7344 28.5241 9 3.7
31 20111021 16:36:00 34.7366 28.5224 8.23 4.2
32 20111103 11:08:00 34.829 28.0302 4.7 3.78
33 20111103 11:23:00 35.037 28.0575 15 4.34
34 20131006 8:44:00 34.6313 28.0575 6.14 3.86
35 20140130 6:39:00 34.6335 27.775 20.8 3.55
36 20140315 11:57:00 34.6574 27.8517 11.64 3.5
Table 8: The focal mechanisms parameters of in Gulf of Aqaba zone
Strike1 Strike 2 P-axis T-axis

serialStrike Dip Rake strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl Tr. Pl. References
no.
1 169.04 64.17 -146.81 63.14 60.48 -30.04 28 41 295 2 AbouElenean
(1997)
2 83.53 71.88 -151.1 343.79 62.66 -20.5 306 33 212 6 CMT Harvard
solution
3 138.72 35.9 -123 357.43 60.54 -68.49 309 67 72 13 CMT Harvard
solution
4 356.13 79.41 -82.81 141.64 12.77 -123.82 275 55 80 34 AbouElenean
(1997)
5 86.2 76.13 -148.33 347.78 59.35 -16.18 311 32 214 11 AbouElenean
(1997)
6 73.99 80.04 -150.11 338.32 60.60 -11.45 300 28 203 13 AbouElenean
(1997)
7 75.45 47.25 -150.94 324.79 69.10 -46.6 280 47 25 13 AbouElenean
(1997)
8 92.63 73.21 -143.41 350.53 55.20 -20.59 314 38 220 5 AbouElenean
(1997)
157
9 358.91 54.55 -38.18 113.43 59.77 -137.83 329 50 235 3 CMT Harvard
solution
10 293.84 77.43 -148.5 196.24 59.34 -14.66 159 31 62 12 Hofstetter et al.
(2003)
11 111.03 77.96 -174.99 19.99 85.10 -12.08 335 12 66 5 CMT Harvard
solution
12 294.24 81.15 -163.19 201.58 73.39 -9.24 160 18 66 14 CMT Harvard
solution
13 199.44 76.57 7.9 166.45 82.31 166.45 154 4 63 15 Badawy and
Horvath (1999)
14 158.64 82.79 148.51 253.04 58.79 8.44 210 16 111 27 Hofstetter et al.
(2003)
15 72.09 74.51 11.57 338.96 78.86 164.2 26 3 295 19 AbouElenean
(1997)
16 116.24 79.84 140.06 214.64 50.81 13.16 171 19 68 35 Hofstetter et al.
(2003)
17 180.27 47.3 -83.94 351.37 43.04 -96.53 149 85 266 2 Hofstetter et al.
(2003)
18 2.46 6.48 -72.24 164.6 83.83 -91.98 278 89 98 1 Hofstetter et al.
(2003)
19 270.22 64.05 -76.21 60.92 29.16 -116.11 207 68 350 18 MED-RCMT
20 114.17 88.69 149.41 204.95 59.42 1.53 164 20 65 22 MED-RCMT
21 303.34 80.49 -119.89 197.32 31.23 -18.57 183 46 57 29 ZUR-RMT
22 309.85 41.15 -117.48 164.49 54.28 -68.04 129 71 239 7 ZUR-RMT
23 134.95 85.1 -169.32 134.95 85.10 -169.32 0 11 269 4 ENSN
24 318.68 59.53 -122.09 189.73 43.09 -47.91 178 61 71 9 ENSN
25 336.9 58.8 -131.53 216.57 50.19 -42.41 192 55 95 5 Emad
Mohamed(2010)
26 146 46 -61 287 51.00 -117 132 69 36 3 Abdelazim et al.
(2016)
27 317.2 53.34 -115.58 175.92 43.65 -59.88 169 69 65 5 Abdelazim et al.
(2016)
28 352.32 54.09 -74.1 146.41 38.83 -110.73 311 75 71 8 Badreldin, (2016)
29 172 65 -37 280 57.00 -150 133 43 -132 5 Badreldin, (2016)
30 148 49 -145 33 64.00 -47 352 50 93 9 Badreldin, (2016)
31 147 49 -128 15 56.00 -58 341 63 83 6 Badreldin, (2016)
32 162 74 -176 71 86.00 -16 26 14 118 8 Badreldin, (2016)
33 351 85 -161 260 71.00 -5 217 17 124 10 Badreldin, (2016)
34 142 73 -15 237 76.00 -162 100 23 9 2 Badreldin, (2016)
35 195 81 -42 293 49.00 -168 145 35 -110 21 Badreldin, (2016)
36 211 83 -27 305 63.00 -172 165 24 -99 13 Badreldin, (2016)
Table 9: The earthquakes events in North Gulf of Suez ML
Serial Date origin Time Longitude latitude Depth Magnitude

no. (year/M/day) (GMT)
1 19830612 12:00:09 33.13 28.55 24 4.8
2 19921020 1:57:58 33.16 28.51 10 3.8
158
3 19921027 9:04:46 33.11 28.84 10 3.5
4 19921027 11:02:47 33.18 28.78 17 4.2
5 19950908 12:13:22 32.23 29.7 13 4
6 19960915 5:18:11 33.604 28.254 6 4.3
7 20000625 19:18:48 33.48 28.21 18 4.6
8 20001103 21:19:03 32.84 28.93 23 3.5
9 20040706 12:13:51 32.53 29.5 25 3.5
10 20080910 10:01:58 33.34 28.24 13.9 3.7
11 20100309 19:58 33.707 28.1406 8.09 3.9
12 20101024 20:07 33.3022 28.1806 9.7 3.5
13 20130122 0:35 33.1505 28.4277 23 3.9
14 20130601 11:49 33.1506 28.4178 13.3 5.4
15 20140722 3:03 32.77 29.77 22 4.9
Table 10: The focal mechanisms parameters of in the northern Gulf of

Suez

Serial Strike Dip Rake Strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl. Tr. Pl. References
no.
1 129.14 85.8 -9.96 219.88 80.06 -175.73 84 10 175 4 Morsy et al.
(2011)
2 157.17 78.09 -50.7 261.32 40.78 -161.59 105 43 218 23 Morsy et al.
(2011)
3 319.71 53.06 -98.95 154.39 37.86 -78.32 195 79 56 7 Morsy et al.
(2011)
4 154.91 56.97 -66.03 295.71 40 -122 115 68 228 9 Morsy et al.
(2011)
5 166.22 61.81 -68.76 306.77 34.76 -124.06 115 66 241 14 Morsy et al.
(2011)
6 121.47 76.8 -109.41 358.52 23.33 -35.22 8 54 227 29 Morsy et al.
(2011)
7 257.43 52.24 -129.23 130.57 52.24 -50.77 104 60 14 0 AbouElenean
(2007)
8 119.77 46.19 -74.67 278.16 45.9 -105.41 108 79 199 0.1 AbouElenean
(2007)
9 322.63 51.85 -70.6 112.95 42.12 -112.92 291 74 39 5 Morsy et al.
(2011)
10 259.5 73.44 -148.17 159.46 59.63 -19.29 123 34 27 9 Abdelazim et al.
2016
11 189 59 -61 322 41 -129 148 63 101 10 Badreldin, (2016)
12 284 67 -32 28 61 -154 244 38 -23 4 Badreldin, (2016)
13 193 69 -30 28 61 -156 152 36 -115 4 Badreldin, (2016)
14 171 55 -21 273 73 -143 137 38 39 11 Badreldin, (2016)
15 275 79 -124 169 36 -19 150 45 31 26 Badreldin, (2016)
159

7DEOH7KHHDUWKTXDNHVHYHQWVLQ6RXWK*XOIRI6XH]0/
Serial Date Origin Longitude Latitude Depth Magnitude

No. (Y/M/D) Time
1 19690324 12:50:51 33.8 27.65 33 4.5
2 19690327 6:15:00 33.9 27.5 33 4.5
3 19690331 7:15:54 33.91 27.61 12 6.7
4 19690423 13:37 33.9 27.6 33 4.6
5 19691230 5:11:03 33.9 27.5 33 4.6
6 19700428 3:20:00 33.6 27.7 33 4.6
7 19701219 22:44:11 33.9 27.5 33 4.4
8 19701008 23:40:00 33.7 27.2 33 4.7
9 19720112 15:44.2 33.82 27.55 36 4.7
10 19720628 9:49:35 33.8 27.7 12 5
11 19730305 23:59:50 33.4 27.74 25 4.4
12 19850228 16:55:47 33.72 27.72 10 4.1
13 19940926 17:27:06 34.02 27.75 19 3.6
14 19950315 9:20:35 33.847 27.706 20 4.1
15 19950406 5:25:04 33.858 27.6 16 3.9
16 19950420 10:41:53 33.816 27.608 15 3.8
17 19950809 20:30:33 33.755 27.66 14 3.6
18 19951211 19:08:25 34.001 27.605 19 5
19 19961217 7:21:20 33.769 27.631 15 3.8
20 19961217 11:31:33 33.758 27.642 12 4.2
21 19991223 8:53:14 33.814 27.526 9 3.9
22 20010820 16:31 33.9 27.5 16 3.6
23 20020213 18:52:10 33.67 28 15 3.7
24 20031011 2:28:06 33.8 28.03 16 3.8
25 20041016 17:47:21 34.91 26.74 12.6 3.5
26 20070520 22:01:51 33.8 27.6 6.1 4.2
27 20111119 7:12:15 34.06 27.7 15 4.6
28 20111120 5:16:04 34.24 27.66 15 4.2
29 20130411 3:56 33.4812 27.8088 4.2 3.5

160
Table 12: The focal mechanisms parameters of in the southern Gulf of
Suez
Serial Strike Dip1 Rake strike Dip Rake Tr. Pl. Tr. Pl. References
no.
1 14.57 27.1 154.81 127.29 78.82 65.15 227 10 26 32 Salamon et al.
(2003)
2 153.95 62.9 52.2 33.52 45.30 140.14 270 10 15 55 Salamon et al.
(2003)
3 293.65 37.01 -89.08 112.51 52.99 -90.69 19 82 203 8 Huang and
Solomon (1987)
4 164.45 79.88 -24.05 258.94 66.34 -168.94 119 24 214 9 Salamon et al.
(2003)
5 286.02 44.96 -118.81 286.02 44.96 -118.81 133 70 313 20 Salamon et al.
(2003)
6 153.5 90 -17.16 243.5 72.84 -180 107 12 200 12 Salamon et al.
(2003)
7 333.32 79.98 -86.05 131.67 10.77 -111.3 248 54 60 34 Salamon et al.
(2003)
8 159.77 25.04 -79.69 328.42 65.39 -94.78 229 69 62 20 Salamon et al.
(2003)
9 92.55 59.27 -44.54 209.24 52.92 -140.17 58 52 152 4 Badawy and
Horvath (1999)
10 288.29 40.28 -99.46 120.61 50.38 -82.07 75 82 205 5 Huang and
Solomon (1987)
11 143.88 79.63 -159.24 49.98 79.63 -159.24 8 22 276 7 Hussein (1989)
12 288.15 70.78 9.46 195.01 160.54 81.08 243 7 150 20 Salamon et al.
(2003)
13 321.09 88.81 -50.41 52.52 39.61 -178.14 264 34 19 32 AbouElenean
(1997)
14 270.14 46.66 -139.63 149.88 61.90 -51.08 111 55 213 9 Abdel Fattah
(1999)
15 154.97 44.19 -80.15 46.63 321.37 -99.44 160 83 58 1 Abdel Fattah
(1999)
16 125.75 78.02 -49.23 229.28 42.20 -162.01 74 42 186 22 AbouElenean
(1997)
17 81.45 51.85 -83.79 251.46 38.58 -97.84 25 82 167 7 Megahed (2004)
18 146.31 47.79 -69.58 297.32 46.04 -111.04 129 75 222 1 R Abdel Fattah
(1999)
19 133.6 60.48 -98.76 330.98 30.68 -74.94 105 31 12 5 AbouElenean
(1997)
20 317.79 64.72 -172.17 330.98 30.68 -74.94 22 73 230 15 Megahed (2004)
21 323.89 79.21 -140.6 225.15 51.43 -13.86 192 35 89 18 AbouElenean
(1997)
22 246.91 61.15 -20.63 347.2 72.02 -149.52 210 34 115 7 AbouElenean
(2003)
23 94.12 62.97 -130.75 336.31 47.56 -38.01 314 53 212 9 AbouElenean
(2007)
24 29.39 39.36 -134.4 261.09 63.06 -60.15 212 59 331 11 ENSN
161
25 146.73 55.49 -24.6 69.93 251.27 -142.91 114 40 16 9 ENSN
26 147.3 55 -89.58 326.57 35.00 -90.6 59 80 237 10 Abdelazim et al.,
(2016)
27 143.26 54.34 -72.75 295.21 39.11 -112.46 103 74 221 8 Abdelazim et al.
(2016)
28 154.4 56.1 -65.17 294.7 41.13 -122 117 68 227 8 Abdelazim et al.
(2016)
29 154 62 -17 252 75.00 -151 115 31 21 8 Badreldin, (2016)

162
Table 13: Historical earthquakes list in the northern Egypt and Eastern
Mediterranean region
probable I
Serial no. Date Lat Long. Ms Mw Reference
Am
Badawy 1998 after Seiberg 1932
1 2200 B.C. 30.75 31.5 7
and Maamoun 1984
2 1210 B.C. 22.5 31.5 6 Badawy 1998 after Seiberg 1932
3 600 B.C. 25.55 33 5 Badawy 1998 after Seiberg 1932
4 220 B.C. 36.5 28.2 7.2 Soloviev et al.,2000
5 227 B.C. 36.36 28.15 7.5 Soloviev et al.,2000
6 142 B.C. 36.7 28 7 Soloviev et al.,2000
7 95 B.C. 30.7 32.5 4 5.2 Ambarseys et al.,1994
8 23±3BC 38.15 22.14 Ambrayseys 2009
Reches and
9 31 BC 31.75 35.5 6 Hoexter,1981,Guidoboni,1994,
Ambraseys2009
53/01/ 24 OR
10 35.2 25.1 Ambraseys 2009
25 AD
Ambraseys2009, Guidoboni1994,
11 115 AD 35.15 36.27 7.4
Meghraoui et al.,2003
12 222 36 28 5 Ambrasey N., 1962
13 320 AD 31.5 30 7 6 Ambraseys 1994
7.5- Ambraseys 1994, Papadimetriou
14 365/07/12 35.25 23.6
8 2008
15 520/10/14 31 31 7 5.8 Ambraseys 1994
Elias et al.2007 & Anna Fokaefs
16 551/7/09 34 35 7.2
2005
17 554/10/14 32 30 Guidoboni 1994
Guidoboni 1994, Ambraseys2009,
18 749/01/18 32.8 35.5 7.3
Reches and Hoexter 1981
Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994,
19 794/04/14 36 26 6
Gudoboni 1994
20 796/04 32 30 6 Maamoun et al.(1984)
21 857/04/30 30 31 9 Ambraseys 1994, Gudoboni 1994
22 885/11/06 30.1 31.2 9 Ambraseys 1994, Gudoboni 1994
23 859/01/27 30.5 31.5 Badawy 1998
24 912 30 31 9 Ambraseys 1994, Gudoboni 1994
27 963/05/12 35 26 5.4 Ambraseys 1994, Gudoboni 1994
Zilberman et al.,2005, Ambraseys
31 1068/03/18 29.65 35 7 6.6
2009
Meghraoui et al.,2003, Maghraoui
33 1170/06/29 33.15 36.27 7.2
2016
Zilberman et al.,2005, Ambraseys
34 1068/03/18 29.65 35 6.6
2009
35 1091/02/12 28 34 7 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
163
36 1111/08/31 30.03 31.15 9 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
37 1195 or 1196 27 34 7 Ambraseys 1994
38 1202/05/20 33.75 35.8 7.6 Maghraoui2016
Klinger et al.,200b, Niemi et
39 1212/05/01 30.25 35.25 7.9
al.,2001, Ambraseys2009
40 1222/05/11 34.5 32.5 6 Ambraseys 1994
44 1303/08/08 34.5 28.5 9 7.3 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
45 1307/08/10 30.2 31 6 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
AL-Maqrizi in Ambraseys 1994 et
48 1352/08/08 20.03 31.15 Emanuela Guidoboni 1994
Catalogue
Ambraseys 1994, porir and taher
49 1347/12/08 30 31.2 6
1981
Ambraseys 1994, porir and taher
50 1353/10/16 25 28
1981
Emanuela Guidoboni 1994
54 1392/04/13 35 33
Catalogue
55 1422/01/28 30 31.2 6 5.4 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
Badawy 1998 afterseiberg 1932,
57 1431/11/06 30 31.2 5.8
Ambraseys 1994
59 1434/11/6 30 31.2 7 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
60 1438/02/25 35 28 6 5.4 Ambraseys 1994
Klinger et al.,2000,
62 1458/11/16 30.25 35.25 7.1
Ambraseys2009
63 1467/12/15 30 31 6 5.4 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
Ambraseys 1994, Porior and taher
65 1481/02/18 35 30 7
1981, Maamoun 1984
68 1491/04/21 35 32 6 Ambraseys 1994
1498/10/16 or
69 30 31.2 6 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
18
70 1500/07/24 36 23 6
1981, Maamoun 1984
72 1508/05/29 35 27 6 Ambraseys 1994
73 1509/04 35 27 6 5.4 Ambraseys 1994
74 1513/03/28 30 31.2 6 5.4 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
164
81 1537/01/08 32 24 6 5.4 Ambraseys 1994
82 1573/02/4 36.5 35.5 6 5.4
1981
84 1588/04/07 29.5 31.5 6
1980, Badawy1998
85 1592/05/37 37 21 6 Ambraseys 1994
86 1609/04 35 28 6 Ambraseys 1994
87 1613/06 35 27 6
1980
88 1633/11/05 37 25 6 Ambraseys 1994
89 1664/11/20 35 35 6 5.4 Ambraseys 1994
90 1693/10/08 32 30.5 4 Maamoun et al. (1984)
91 1694/12/12 29 31 7 Ambraseys 1994
92 1698/10/2 32 30 6 1980, Maamoun 1984, Badawy
1998
93 1705/24 33.8 36.15 6.9 Ambraseys2009
95 1741/01/31 35 28 7 Ambraseys 1994
96 1754/10/18 29.6 32.25 7 5.4 1981, Maamoun 1984, Badawy
1998
97 1756/02/13 36 23 6 Ambraseys 1994
98 1759/10/30 33 35.56 7.2 Maghraoui2016, Ambraseys2009
99 1759/11/25 33.75 35.8 7.3 Ambraseys2009
100 1778/06/22 26.2 32.1 6 5.4 1981, Maamoun 1984, Badawy
1998
101 1790/05/26 35 25 6 Ambraseys 1994
103 1805/07/03 36 24 6 Ambraseys 1994
104 1810/02/17 36 23 7 Ambraseys 1994
Nemenr and Meghraoui,2006,
107 1837/01/01 33.63 35.5 7
Ambraseys2009
108 1839 28.5 34 7 Ambraseys 1994
114 1851/04/03 36 28 6 Ambraseys 1994
115 1856/10/12 35.5 26 7 Ambraseys 1994
117 1863/04/22 36.5 28 6 Ambraseys 1994
165
121 1873/01/12 32.5 33 6 5.8 Badawy 1998, Ambraseys 1994
125 1887/07/17 36 26 7 Ambraseys 1994
127 3/6/1900 29.3 34.6 5 Maamoun et al. (1984)
128 12/28/1908 38 15.3 4.6 Galanopoulos A.,1955
129 1/20/1941 35.10 33.39 5.9 Papadopoulos 2005
130 9/10/1953 34.48 32.47 6.1 Papadopoulos 2005
The euro-Mediterranean tsunami
131 5/15/1979 34.62 24.08 5.8 catalogue Alessandra Maramai et
al.,2014
Table 14: 7KHHDUWKTXDNHVHYHQWV0ZLQWKH+HOOHQLFDUF

No. Date Time Long. Lat. Depth Mw
1 19650427 14:09:00 23.5 36.6 13 5.5
2 19910626 11:43:34 21.04 38.34 22 5.2
3 19590709 3:11:00 25.8 36.7 22 7.5
4 8/17/1982 22:29.8 22.9 33.7 23.4 6.3
5 5/28/1998 33:33.4 27.36 31.39 39 5.5
6 4/5/2000 36:58.0 25.83 34.08 15 5.5
7 2/20/2008 27:11.0 21.8 36.31 22.1 6.2
8 7/15/2008 26:44.5 27.34 35.92 34 6.4
9 10/12/2013 11:56.3 23.37 35.37 15 6.8
10 8/29/2014 45:06.0 23.65 36.49 100.3 5.8
11 4/16/2015 07:44.0 26.81 35.03 26.1 6.2
12 7/27/1997 07:52.5 21.064 35.582 13 5.7
13 3/28/2008 16:19.9 25.39 34.89 52 5.7
Table 15: The focal mechanisms parameters of in the Hellenic arc

No. Strike Dip Rake References
1 191 64 -79 Liotier 1989
2 -105 354 41 Louvari 2000
3 55 40 -90 HRVD
4 36 57 88 HRVD
5 154 44 89 HRVD
6 109 48 99 HRVD
7 250 83 -7 MED_RCMT
8 262 84 -41 NEIC
9 119 88 88 GCMT
10 265 70 170 MED_RCMT
11 65 28 12 MED_RCMT
12 62 80 -175 NEIC
13 99 50 103 MED_RCMT
166
References
Abdelazim, M., Samir, A., El-Nader, I.A., Badawy, A. and Hussein, H., (2016).
Seismicity and focal mechanisms of earthquakes in Egypt from 2004 to 2011.
NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 5(2), pp.393-402.
Abdel-Fattah, R., (1999). Seismotectonic Studies on the Gulf of Suez Region, Egypt.
M.Sc. Thesis. Fac. of Sci., Geology Dept. Mansoura Univ.
Abou Elenean, K.M.,(1997), Seismotectonics of Egypt in relation to the

Mediterranean and Red Sea tectonics. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Sci. Ain Shams Univ.,
Egypt.
Abou Elenean, K., Arvidsson, R. and Kulhanek, O., (2004). Focal mechanism of
smaller earthquakes close to VBB Kottamia station, Egypt. Annals of the Geological
Survey of Egypt, XXVII, p.357-368.
Abou Elenean, K. M. (2007), Focal mechanisms of small and moderate size

earthquakes recorded by the Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN), Egypt,
NRIAG J. Geophys., Vol. 6, no. 1, p.119±153.
Abou Elenean, K.M., and Hussein, H.M., (2007). Source mechanism and source
parameters of May 28, 1998 earthquake, Egypt: Journal of Seismology, Vol. 11, p.
259±274, doi: 10.1007/s10950-007-9051-5.
Ambraseys , N., (1962). Data for the investigation of the seismic sea waves in the
Eastern Mediterranean. « Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., », Vol.52, no. 4, p. 895-913.
Ambraseys, N.N., Melville, C.P., Adam, R.D., (1994). The Seismicity of Egypt,
Arabia and the Red Sea: A Historical Review. Cambridge, UK, pp.181.
Ambraseys, N., (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A

Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900, pp.947, Cambridge University
Press, ISBN: 9780521872928.
Ambraseys, N.N., Melville, C.P., Adam, R.D., (1994). The Seismicity of Egypt,
Arabia and the Red Sea: A Historical Review. Cambridge, UK.
Badawy, A. (2001). The present-day stress field in Egypt. Ann. Geofis., Vol. 44, p.
557-570.
Badawy, A., (1998). Earthquake Hazard Analysis in Northern Egypt, Acta
Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica, June 1998, Volume 33, Issue 2, p. 341±357.
Badawy, A., Horvath, F., (1999). Recent stress field of the Sinai subplate region.
Tectonophysics Vol.304,p. 385±403.
167
Badreldin , H.Y.Mohamed (2016) Analysis of full waveform moment tensor
inverszion of local earthquakes in Egypt, M. Sc., Aswan University, science
faculty, pp.170
CMT catalogue: Centroid Moment Tensor catalogue of Harvard,

http://www.seismology.harvard.edusearch.html
Costantinescu L., Ruprecrtova, L. and Enescu, D. (1996). Mediterranean- Alpine

earthquake mechanisms and their seismotectonic implications Geophys. J .R. Astro.
Soc., Vol. 10 ,p.347-368.
Egyptian National seismic network (ENSN) Bulletin (1998-2004). Earthquakes in

and around Egypt. National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics
(NRIAG), Egypt.
Elias, A., Tapponnie, P., Singh, S.C., King, G.C.P., Briais, A.,Daëron, M.,
Carton,H., Sursock, A., Jacques, E., Jomaa, R., Klinger, Y., (2007). Active
thrusting offshore Mount Lebanon: source of the tsunamigenic AD 551 Beirut±Tripoli
earthquake. Geology Vol. 35, p. 755±758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G23631A.1.
EMSC. Eastern Mediternean seismological center, https://www.emsc-csem.org/#2
Galanopoulos, A. G.(1955). The Seismic Geography of Greece, Ann. Geol. Pays

Hellen., 6, 83±121 (in Greek).
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, http://www.gfz-

potsdam.de/startseite.
Guidoboni, E., 1994, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up

to the 10th century, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica Rome, 504 pp.
Harvard CMT catalog. Centroid Moment Tensor catalog of Harvard,

http://www.seismology.harvarrd.edu/CMT search.html.
Hofstetter A, Thio HK, Shamir G (2003). Source mechanism of the 22/11/95 gulf of
Aqaba Earthquake and its aftershock sequence.J Seismol Vol.7, p.99±114.
Huang, P.Y., Solomon, S.C., (1987). Centroid depths and mechanisms of midocean
ridge earthquakes in the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. J. Geophys. Res.
Vol. 92, p.1361±1382.
168
Hussein, H.M., 1989. Earthquake activities in Egypt and adjacent regions and its
relation to geotectonic features in A.R.E. MSc. Thesis. Fac. of Sci., Geology Dept.,
Mansoura University, Egypt.
Emad Mohamed, K., Hassoup, A., Abou Elenean, K.M., Adel Othman, A.A.,
Diaa-Eldin Hamed, M.K., (2015). Earthquakes focal mechanism and stress field
pattern in the northeastern part of Egypt. NRIAG J. Astron. Geophys. Vol.4, p. 205±
221.
Klinger, Y., J. P. Avouac, L. Dorbath, N. Abou Karaki, and N. Tisnerat (2000).

Seismic behavior of the Dead Sea fault along Araba valley (Jordan), Geophys. J. Int.
Vol.142, p. 769±782
Korrat, I.M., El Agami, N.L., Hussein, H.M., El-Gabry, M.N. (2005),

Seismotectonics of the passive continental margin of Egypt, Journal of African Earth
Sciences Vol.41. p. 145±150.
Liotier, Y.0RGHOLVDWLRQGHVRQGHVGHYROXPHGHVVHLVPHVGHO¶DUF$JHHQ

'($GHO¶8QLYHUVLWH-RVHSK)RXULHU*UHQREOH)UDQFH
Louvari, A ., (2000). A detailed seismotectonic study in the Aegean sea and the
surrounding area with emphasis on the information obtained from microearthquakes,
PhD thesis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 373.
Maamoun, M., Megahed, A. and Allam, A., (1984). Seismicity of Egypt: NRIAG
Bull., IV (B), p. 109±160
Maramai, A., Brizuela, B. and Graziani, L., (2014). The Euro-Mediterranean

Tsunami Catalogue. Annals of Geophysics, Vol.57(4), p.0435.
MED_RCMT. MedNet Regional Moment Centroid Moment Tensors,

http://www.ingv.it/seismoglo/RCMT
Megahed, A., (2004). Seismic deformation studies on the northeastern part of Egypt.
Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of science, Mansoura University, Egypt.
Meghraoui, M., (2016). Seismotectonic Map of Africa: Episodes, Vol. 39, p. 9±18,
doi: 10.18814/epiiugs/2016/v39i1/89232.
Meghraoui, M., Gomez, F., Sbeinati, R., Van der Woerd, J., Mounty, M., Darkal,
A. N., Radwan, Y., Layyous, I., Al-Najjar, H., Darawcheh, R., Hijazi, F., Al-
Ghazzi, R., and Barazangi, M., (2003). Evidence for 830 years of seismic
quiescence from palaeoseismology, archaeoseismology, and historical seismicity
along the Dead Sea Fault in Syria, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., Vol. 210, p. 35-52.
169
Morsy, M., Hussein, H.M., Abou Elenean, K.M., El-Hady, Sh., (2011). Stress field
in the central and northern parts of the Gulf of Suez area, Egypt from earthquake fault
plane solutions. J. Afric. Earth Sci. Vol. 60,p. 293±302.
NEIC. National Earthquakes Information Center, http//neic.usgs.gov/,

http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regioanl/neic
Nemer, T. and Meghraoui, M., (2006). Evidence of coseismic ruptures along the
Roum fault (Lebanon): A possible source for the AD 1837 earthquake. Journal of
Structural Geology, 28(8), pp.1483-1495.
Niemi, R.G., Weisberg, H.F. and Kimball, D.C. eds., (2001). Controversies in
voting behavior (p. 1). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Papadimitriou, E., Karakostas, V., (2008). Rupture model of the great AD 365
Crete earthquake in the southwestern part of the Hellenic Arc. Acta Geophysica
Vol.56 no.2,p. 293±312.
Papadopoulos, G. and Fokaefs, A. µµ6Wrong tsunamis in the Mediterranean

Sea: a re- HYDOXDWLRQ¶¶-RXUQDORI(DUWKTXDNH7HFKQRORJ\9ROS±170
Poirier, J. P. and Taher, M.: 1980, Historical Seismicity in the near and Middle East
north Africa and Spain from Arabic documents (VIIth-XVIIth Century), Bull Seismol.
Soc. Am. Vol.70, p.185-201. Reborto
Reches, Z., and D. F. Hoexter (1981). Holocene seismic and tectonic activity in the
Dead Sea area, Tectonophysics Vol.80,p. 235±254.
Salamon, A., Hofstetter, A., Garfunkel, Z., Ron, H., (2003). Seismotectonics of the
Sinai subplate²the eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys. J. Int. Vol.155, p.149±
173
Sieberg A., 1932, Untersuchungenüber Erdbeben und Bruchschollenban im östlichen

Mittelmeergebiet. « Denkschriften der Medizinish-Natur- wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft zu Jena », vol. 2, Jena.
Soloviev, S.L., Solovieva, O.N., Go, C.N., Kim, K.S., and Shchetnikov, N.A.,
(2000). Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea 2000 B.C.-2000 A.D, pp. 237, Kluwer
academic, Dordrecht/ Boston/ London ISBN: 0-7923-6548-8
Zilberman, E., R. Amit, N. Porat, Y. Enzel, and U. Avner (2005), Surface ruptures
induced by the devastating 1068 AD earthquake in the southern Arava valley, Dead
Sea Rift, Israel, Tectonophysics, Vol. 408, p.79±99.
ZUR_RMT. Zurich Moment Tensors, Swiss Seismological service, ETH-

Honggerberg, http//seismo.ethz.ch/info/mt.html.
170
Appendix B : XRD Diffraction
Core 1 sample 1
2Theta d (A) Height Area FWHM Identified mineral WT%

17 6.54906 14.1 24.2 0.1959 Gypsum 1.767138739
25.207 4.43635 10.4 17.9 0.2284 - 0
26.2 4.27096 80.4 224.4 0.2609 -
26.878 4.16509 7.3 20.4 0.2648 Geothite 0.914901617
29.135 3.84871 7.3 20.4 0.2668 -
30.344 3.69869 64.1 174.5 0.2688 -
31.308 3.5876 17.6 47.9 0.3164 -
31.725 3.54154 15.6 42.3 0.3401 -
32.31 3.47908 13.5 36.7 0.352 Aragonite 1.691941346
33.633 3.34596 336.5 1545.2 0.3639 Quartz 42.17320466
34.65 3.25063 130 597.2 0.3755 Feldspar (orthoclase ) 16.29276852
35.152 3.20569 145.5 668.2 0.3813 Albite 18.23536784
37.221 3.03326 65.9 338.3 0.3872 Calcite 8.259180348
39.075 2.89461 62.2 304.3 0.3949 dolomite 7.795463091
40.166 2.81908 12.5 60.9 0.3591 Halite 1.566612357
42.422 2.67551 10.4 50.8 0.3412 Pyrite 1.303421481
45.598 2.49811 17.6 86.1 0.3323 -
46.356 2.45949 46.7 181.3 0.3233 -
47.353 2.41057 9.4 36.4 0.312 -
48.189 2.37119 9.4 36.4 0.3063 -
50.147 2.28426 50.2 165.7 0.3006 -
171
Core 1 sample 2

11.008 10.09211 13.1 74.7 0.3574 Illite 3.116821318
24.681 4.52938 12.6 51.4 0.3356 - 0
26.207 4.26987 30.8 97.7 0.2652 -
27.931 4.0111 7.6 24.3 0.2974 -
29.077 3.85612 21.4 90.1 0.3297 -
30.351 3.69791 10.6 44.6 0.2948 Aragonite 2.522008089
33.57 3.35211 154.2 353.1 0.26 Quartz 36.68807994
34.523 3.26222 24.6 56.2 0.3908 Feldspar (orthoclase ) 5.85296217
35.108 3.2096 14.4 33 0.4562 Albite 3.426124197
37.22 3.03336 139.9 945.6 0.5217 Calcite 33.28574828
39.053 2.89614 40 215.2 0.4159 dolomite 9.517011658
40.031 2.82818 11.9 63.9 0.3186 Halite 9.517011658
41.875 2.70891 11.6 26.4 0.2213 Pyrite 2.759933381
45.7 2.49284 32.8 355.3 0.9235 -
47.208 2.41755 15.3 165.4 0.5999 -
172
Core 1 sample 3

15.408 7.22089 12.4 89.9 0.5334 Gypsum 1.651571657
24.948 4.4817 10.4 75.3 0.3984 - 0
26.212 4.26897 70.9 212.5 0.2634 -
29.054 3.85916 16.6 49.8 0.2498 -
30.366 3.69605 32.8 82.5 0.2363 -
31.326 3.58558 21.8 54.7 0.2368 Aragonite 2.903569526
33.592 3.35 325.3 699.6 0.2373 Quartz 43.32711774
37.218 3.03354 196.2 948.1 0.4227 Calcite 26.13212573
39.072 2.8948 61.9 261.7 0.3479 dolomite 8.244539158
45.633 2.49629 27.2 406.4 0.9975 -
46.266 2.464 24.9 371.7 0.7214 - 0
48.712 2.34725 10.4 155.6 0.5833 -
50.15 2.28412 43.5 242 0.4452 -
51.246 2.23847 12.5 0 0 -
52.207 2.20008 11.4 0 0 -
173
Core 1 sample 4

15.354 7.24607 15.8 72 0.4291 Gypsum 2.243362204
26.29 4.25668 39.8 142.2 0.3088 - 0
29.193 3.84117 24.4 87.4 0.2846 -
30.473 3.68344 36.3 87.5 0.2604 -
31.586 3.55673 16.6 40.1 0.2581 Aragonite 2.356950163
33.704 3.33918 315 700.4 0.2558 Quartz 44.72525912
35.347 3.18855 36.1 80.3 0.4016 Albite 5.12565668
37.347 3.02339 185.6 1102.9 0.4502 Calcite 26.35240664
39.207 2.88523 62.1 304.6 0.3948 dolomite 8.81726537
43.033 2.6393 16.8 38.6 0.2072 -
45.94 2.48052 28 202.3 0.5829 -
46.373 2.45864 21.5 155.5 0.536 -
50.333 2.27634 37 263 0.4891 -
51.415 2.23159 8.8 0 0 -
174
Core 1 sample 5

17.139 6.49624 16.5 47.7 0.2592 Gypsum 2.160534241
23.727 4.70878 8.4 24.2 0.2634 - 0
24.966 4.47848 11.5 33.2 0.2654 -
26.259 4.26147 50.3 144.7 0.2675 -
27.692 4.04493 9.4 27.2 0.2481 -
29.097 3.85359 9.4 27.2 0.2288 -
30.417 3.6901 60 63.5 0.1901 -
31.328 3.58535 20.9 22.1 0.2439 Aragonite 2.736676706
33.633 3.34595 331.6 1301.9 0.2978 Quartz 43.42019117
35.294 3.19323 37.5 147.3 0.3974 Albite 4.910305094
37.244 3.03148 122.2 626.1 0.4307 Calcite 16.00104753
39.1 2.89278 56.1 366.2 0.4861 dolomite 7.34581642
42 2.70119 21 89.7 0.3611 Pyrite 2.749770852
45.748 2.49039 27.2 218.7 0.6017 -
46.365 2.45903 18.8 151.4 0.5858 -
48.1 2.37531 13.6 100 0.57 -
50.244 2.28014 30.8 93 0.3152 - 0
175
Core 1 sample 6

14.926 7.4528 140.2 268.1 0.2051 Gypsum 23.04404997
24.139 4.62956 9.8 18.7 0.2147 -
25.181 4.44076 8.8 16.9 0.2243 - 0
25.877 4.32342 10.8 20.6 0.2435 -
26.652 4.19975 58 176.9 0.2819 Geothite 9.533201841
29.9 3.75237 48.7 138.5 0.2685 -
30.83 3.64184 30.2 85.9 0.2611 Aragonite 4.963839579
33.436 3.3651 36 102.5 0.2574 Quartz 5.917159763
34.005 3.31046 305.5 866.3 0.2537 -
35.696 3.15841 28.2 80.1 0.3998 Albite 4.635108481
37.661 2.99911 150.7 858 0.4485 Calcite 24.76988823
39.435 2.86922 79.8 607.4 0.4946 dolomite 13.11637081
40.388 2.80423 17.6 133.6 0.4097 Halite 2.892833662
42.3 2.68291 27.8 122.1 0.3247 Pyrite 4.569362262
46.2 2.46732 31.1 192 0.4667 -
46.818 2.43654 21.4 132.4 0.3899 -
176
Core 1 sample 7

15.414 7.21807 11.4 94.4 0.8724 Gypsum 2.366618227
19.4 5.74515 8.2 94.4 0.8724 -
21.267 5.24597 7.9 27.1 0.1957 -
22.609 4.93835 8.8 22.9 0.148 -
24.888 4.49223 10.4 27.2 0.2573 -
26.255 4.26213 26.7 123.3 0.3665 -
29.195 3.84093 19.3 85.8 0.3034 - 0
30.36 3.69679 9.4 41.6 0.2881 -
33.055 3.40278 35.8 158.8 0.2805 Aragonite 7.432011625
33.631 3.34617 141.8 414.4 0.2729 Quartz 29.43740918
35.424 3.18185 24.9 72.8 0.364 Albite 5.169192443
37.29 3.02783 165 698.5 0.3944 Calcite 34.25368487
39.134 2.89041 47.8 334.5 0.5099 dolomite 9.923188707
42.034 2.69908 24.9 136.3 0.4053 Pyrite 9.923188707
45.792 2.48812 42.1 253.4 0.4755 -
177
Core 1 sample 8

26.28 4.25817 25.9 106.1 0.3271 -
29.132 3.84901 18.3 102 0.4633 -
29.949 3.74633 12.9 71.7 0.3677 - 0
30.416 3.69012 12.9 71.7 0.3199 -
33.126 3.39576 49.5 276.4 0.296 Aragonite 10.8220376
33.644 3.34495 109.6 390.4 0.2721 Quartz 23.96152164
34.527 3.26188 29.7 106 0.3281 Feldspar (orthoclase ) 6.493222562
35.088 3.21137 21.6 76.9 0.356 Albite 4.722343682
37.262 3.03002 183 884.9 0.384 Calcite 40.00874508
39.011 2.89913 33.8 163.6 0.3723 dolomite 7.389593354
41.948 2.70441 30.2 129.8 0.3606 Pyrite 6.602536073
44.144 2.57606 10.1 40.9 0.3333 -
45.789 2.48828 43.3 213.1 0.3939 -
48.033 2.37842 20.3 107.9 0.4705 -
48.821 2.34234 14.6 77.5 0.464 -
178
Core 1 sample 9

13.14 8.46016 20.7 66.9 0.2986 Illite 2.920428894
14.542 7.64853 147.8 273.4 0.2206 Gypsum 20.85214447
26.178 4.2745 31.5 90.1 0.2721 -
28.299 3.95992 9 25.6 0.3067 -
29.403 3.81438 32.2 122.1 0.3414 - 0
30.366 3.69609 23.1 146.9 0.4859 -
31.9 3.52268 11.8 100.5 0.7569 -
32.959 3.41251 26.8 227.2 0.5136 Aragonite 3.781038375
33.559 3.35317 205.7 585.9 0.2703 Quartz 29.02088036
34.543 3.26045 24 68.4 0.2693 Feldspar (orthoclase ) 3.386004515
35.288 3.19374 64.2 184.6 0.2684 Albite 9.057562077
37.212 3.03401 165.2 979.9 0.4741 Calcite 3.68227991
39.087 2.89373 26.1 149.9 0.4795 dolomite 3.68227991
39.947 2.83387 11.2 64.3 0.5949 Halite 1.58013544
41.903 2.70715 17.1 157.3 0.7103 Pyrite 2.412528217
43.866 2.59161 9.6 70.6 0.5639 -
45.737 2.49095 33.2 187.6 0.4583 -
179
Core 1 sample 10

13.156 8.45006 23.1 60.7 0.2354 Illite 2.946052799
14.538 7.65071 238.4 465.5 0.2324 Gypsum 30.40428517
23.702 4.71352 10 52.5 0.4071 -
26.2 4.271 35.7 193.4 0.4343 -
29.422 3.812 43.7 129.9 0.3166 -
30.363 3.69645 13.7 40.7 0.267 - 0
31.322 3.58594 24.6 54.1 0.2174 -
32.876 3.42085 52.4 114.9 0.2426 Aragonite 6.682821069
33.59 3.35019 76.2 225.2 0.2678 Quartz 9.718148195
37.218 3.03355 135.8 993.3 0.6056 Calcite 17.31921949
38.994 2.9004 16.7 135.2 0.5603 dolomite 2.129830379
41.867 2.7094 29.2 121.8 0.3559 Pyrite 3.724014794
45.747 2.49042 31.2 182.2 0.4542 -
48.05 2.37766 17.6 56.4 0.2938 -
48.85 2.34102 15.2 48.9 0.4407 -
50.217 2.28129 25.1 191.3 0.5876 -
180
Core 1 sample 11

13.205 8.41877 22.2 530.9 0.2312 Illite 2.735000616
14.584 7.62644 260.8 530.9 0.2312 Gypsum 32.13009733
26.258 4.26164 25 103.6 0.3613 - -
29.473 3.80552 57.8 122.5 0.2422 - -
30.302 3.70367 19.7 41.8 0.2409 - -
32.926 3.41576 55 116.6 0.2403 Aragonite 6.775902427
33.645 3.34479 218.1 468.5 0.2396 Quartz 26.86953308
35.381 3.1856 16.5 35.4 0.5609 Albite 2.032770728
37.272 3.02925 130.5 1114.7 0.668 Calcite 16.07736849
38.936 2.90455 25.5 217.7 0.5544 dolomite 3.141554762
41.893 2.7078 42.9 244.3 0.4409 Pyrite 5.285203893
45.807 2.48735 34 256.5 0.5778 - -
48.119 2.37443 25.2 112.3 0.3778 - -
181
Core1 sample 12

29.074 3.85656 27.6 79.1 0.283 Aragonite 3.998261625
33.634 3.34594 27.8 126.2 0.3931 Quartz 4.027234536
37.244 3.03147 249.1 988.7 0.3364 Calcite 36.08575981
38.804 2.91402 323.7 1038.5 0.3192 dolomite 46.89265537
39.995 2.83066 17.6 56.4 0.3824 - -
42.101 2.695 14.6 86.6 0.4457 pyrite 2.115022454
45.716 2.492 28.2 204.7 0.5439 - -
47.068 2.42434 12.4 90.3 0.4881 - -
50.233 2.28058 44.5 240.6 0.4322 - -
52 2.20822 28 135.6 0.3539 - -
55.133 2.09175 33.5 227.8 0.5053 - -
182
Core 1 sample 13

29.053 3.85937 19.5 87.4 0.3652 - -
29.973 3.74342 13.9 62.4 0.3875 Aragonite 2.302849569
33.529 3.35605 21.5 97.3 0.4098 Quartz 3.561961564
37.167 3.03757 154.5 744.2 0.3605 Calcite 25.59642147
38.833 2.9119 341.2 2226.2 0.4437 dolomite 56.52750166
42.017 2.70017 12.1 70.7 0.4667 Pyrite 2.004638834
44.284 2.56835 7.5 43.9 0.4824 - -
45.674 2.4942 17.4 109.5 0.4981 - -
47.074 2.42405 17.9 71.5 0.3496 - -
50.09 2.28668 28 143.2 0.4343 - -
51.989 2.20866 42.9 175.5 0.3811 - -
183
Core 1 sample 14

26.237 4.26512 11.8 78.4 0.4812 - -
29.117 3.85107 20.1 95 0.4278 - -
30.154 3.72144 19 89.9 0.3427 Aragonite 2.887537994
33.592 3.34998 53.2 150.4 0.2576 Quartz 8.085106383
37.227 3.03281 125.7 508.3 0.3504 Calcite 19.10334347
38.759 2.91728 332.8 1345.4 0.4317 dolomite 50.5775076
40.027 2.82847 29.6 218.4 0.5131 Halite 4.498480243
42.201 2.68892 11.9 88.7 0.5155 Pyrite 3.11550152
45.652 2.49533 20.5 87.4 0.4439 - -
47.168 2.41947 21.6 145.3 0.5547 - -
50.167 2.28341 24.5 172.4 0.5065 - -
52.025 2.20725 52.7 219.8 0.3621 - -
184
Core 2 sample 1

24.68 4.52958 22.1 20.9 0.1821 -
26.422 4.23575 57.1 160.9 0.2629 Geothite 9.911473702
29.333 3.82326 15.7 44.1 0.2602 -
30.548 3.67455 25.3 70.6 0.2574 -
32.097 3.50156 13.8 38.7 0.2614 -
33.146 3.39375 22.3 62.2 0.2634 Aragonite 3.870855754
33.782 3.33166 190.7 564.2 0.2654 Quartz 33.10189203
35.434 3.18101 76.1 238.1 0.269 Feldspar ( Albite ) 13.20951224
37.425 3.01733 126.8 498.7 0.334 Calcite 22.0100677
39.234 2.88335 56.6 358.6 0.4627 Dolomite 9.824683215
40.2 2.81681 10.2 64.9 0.4647 Halite 1.77052595
42.167 2.691 16.4 84 0.4667 Pyrite 4.287450095
45.824 2.48646 24.7 101.7 0.3456 -
46.573 2.44863 33.9 134.5 0.3314 -
48.26 2.3679 10 26.3 0.244 -
50.434 2.2721 30.8 130.5 0.3732 -
52.635 2.18346 13.1 105.2 0.5804 -
54.212 2.12453 13.2 106.7 0.468 -
55.333 2.08478 21 82.7 0.3556 -
185
Core 2 sample 2

5.947 18.65992 228.2 179 0.1295 Mont. 38.16053512
29.701 3.77699 20.5 100 0.4178 -
33.605 3.34866 30.4 147.9 0.3617 Quartz 14.71571906
34.224 3.28991 88 326 0.3055 Feldspar (orthoclase ) 14.71571906
35.02 3.21734 19.1 70.8 0.3124 Albite 3.193979933
37.863 2.98371 196.8 758.3 0.3193 Calcite 32.909699
39.619 2.8564 20.5 79 0.3379 Dolomite 3.428093645
40.769 2.77913 9.9 38.3 0.3472 - -
42.6 2.66488 15 70 0.3565 Pyrite 2.508361204
46.392 2.45768 34.1 173.3 0.44 - -
47.844 2.38727 11.3 57.7 0.3613 - -
48.673 2.34901 14 42.7 0.2825 - -
50.811 2.25634 34.1 168 0.4058 - -
186
Core 2 sample 3

26.26 4.26137 36.7 102.7 0.2462 - 0
29.156 3.84603 19.6 62 0.317 -
33.048 3.4035 34 107.6 0.2939 Aragonite 9.366391185
33.643 3.34505 96 290.4 0.2708 Quartz 26.44628099
34.531 3.26148 33 99.8 0.3013 Feldspar (Orthoclase) 9.090909091
37.263 3.03002 159.3 610.4 0.3318 Calcite 43.88429752
38.783 2.9155 11.7 44.8 0.3253 Dolomite 3.223140496
40.069 2.82563 11.7 44.8 0.3221 Halite 3.223140496
41.954 2.70401 17.3 53.7 0.3189 Pyrite 4.76584022
45.75 2.49027 28.5 183.4 0.4474 -
48.052 2.37752 16.3 96.4 0.473 -
48.969 2.33571 14.7 86.9 0.4218 -
50.234 2.28056 29.1 125.5 0.3706 -
55.217 2.08884 24.6 121.7 0.3801 -
58.578 1.97873 24.7 129.5 0.3952 -
187
Core 2 sample 4

32.758 3.43282 64.4 214.7 0.2766 Aragonite 18.14084507
33.525 3.35641 72.1 214.7 0.2766 Quartz 20.30985915
34.202 3.29199 37.4 111.2 0.4672 Feldspar (orthoclase) 10.53521127
35.104 3.20995 6.9 20.6 0.5625 Feldspar (Albite ) 1.943661972
37.194 3.03538 90.3 833.3 0.6578 Calcite 25.43661972
38.803 2.91412 15.3 140.7 0.458 Dolomite 4.309859155
40.019 2.829 21.5 68.2 0.2583 Halite 6.056338028
41.825 2.71197 47.1 148.9 0.2876 Pyrite 13.26760563
45.678 2.494 34.8 176.7 0.3911 -
47.013 2.42703 11.8 59.9 0.3525 -
47.967 2.38153 26.6 105.7 0.3139 -
48.727 2.34659 22.2 88.1 0.5884 -
50.7 2.26094 14.3 183.7 0.8628 -
52.5 2.18866 7.1 69.6 0.6444 -
54.05 2.13044 6.1 23.1 0.1167 -
188
Core 2 sample 5

32.945 3.41386 70.7 212.3 0.3078 Aragonite 29.60636516
34.155 3.29636 36 108 0.4836 Quartz 15.07537688
37.24 3.03179 89.7 762.8 0.6595 Calcite 37.56281407
41.806 2.71316 42.4 130.2 0.2969 Pyrite 17.75544389
45.687 2.49353 39.6 161.1 0.3731 - -
47.283 2.41394 10.2 41.6 0.3524 - -
47.989 2.38048 29.5 121.1 0.3316 - -
48.924 2.33771 24.4 100 0.6495 - -
50.5 2.26933 18.2 236.4 0.9674 - -
52.115 2.20369 9.6 236.4 0.9674 - -
189
Core 2 sample 6

33.091 3.39922 83 337.1 0.3292 Aragonite 25.76039727
34.32 3.28098 53.7 218.4 0.4602 Quartz 16.66666667
37.385 3.02047 118.2 881.1 0.5912 Calcite 36.68528864
40.148 2.8203 18.1 134.5 0.4844 Dolomite 5.617628802
41.967 2.70322 49.2 188.8 0.3775 Pyrite 15.27001862
45.85 2.48512 49.3 247.7 0.4326 - -
47.347 2.41084 18.1 86.9 0.9047 - -
47.947 2.38242 36.1 12.3 0.1731 - -
48.976 2.33538 27.4 19.8 0.2418 - -
50.347 2.27575 18.8 143.6 0.9735 - -
190
Core 3 sample 1

22.341 4.9968 12.4 258.9 0.2482 Gypsum 2.094948
23.509 4.75172 14.5 258.9 0.2482 -
24.829 4.50278 94.1 258.9 0.2482 - 0
28.783 3.89478 64.6 181 0.271 -
32.033 3.50837 330.8 1764.2 0.374 -
33.023 3.40606 37.1 198 0.3264 Aragonite 6.267951
33.66 3.34336 77.9 231.4 0.2789 Quartz 6.267951
35.6 3.16659 39.7 118.8 0.3052 feldspar 6.707214
37.467 3.01407 61 358 0.4212 calcite 5.575266
38.531 2.93391 33 193.7 0.4404 dolomite 2.31458
42.3 2.68291 13.7 99.5 0.4596 pyrite 2.31458
44.767 2.54206 36 148.3 0.3118 -
48.583 2.35309 30.2 170.8 0.4067 -
191
Core 3 sample 2

25.081 4.45827 90.2 16182.7 0 - 0
33.583 3.3508 124.5 12597.3 5 Quartz 21.08026
34.578 3.25722 87.4 8843.6 3.0111 feldspar 14.79851
35.216 3.20007 128.8 9830.7 1.0222 feldspar ( Albite) 21.80833
37.171 3.03721 136.4 2165.3 1.099 calcite 23.09516
39.05 2.89637 113.5 17280 1.099 Dolomite 19.21774
40.033 2.82807 88 13402.9 1.099 Halite 14.9001
45.633 2.49629 79.4 15474.7 1.099 -
47.193 2.4183 74.1 14450.9 1.099 -
50.133 2.28483 79 10121.3 1.099 -
192
Core 3 sample 3

26.237 4.2651 65 141.3 0.2437 -
30.395 3.69263 29.9 108.1 0.3231 - 0
33.176 3.39079 45.9 165.9 0.2885 Aragonite 7.9302
33.613 3.34793 274.1 777.9 0.2538 Quartz 47.3566
34.653 3.2504 44.2 125.5 0.3469 Feldspar 7.636489
35.348 3.18846 26 73.9 0.3934 Albite 4.492053
37.224 3.03308 102.1 512.8 0.44 Calcite 17.63994
39.054 2.89611 64.6 339.7 0.4255 Dolomite 11.16102
41.917 2.7063 21.9 73.7 0.3108 Pyrite 3.78369
45.767 2.48941 26.5 179.3 0.4574 -
46.471 2.45374 20.8 141 0.3504 -
48.133 2.37377 19 42.3 0.2433 -
48.904 2.33862 12.2 27.2 0.3083 -
50.215 2.28135 25.3 98.7 0.3733 -
52.367 2.19384 16.3 71 0.3667 -
193
Core 3 sample 4

26.276 4.25876 45.2 143.5 0.3076 - 0
29.196 3.84075 15.3 48.5 0.2681 -
30.421 3.68953 27 60.8 0.2286 -
32.966 3.41179 34.5 77.6 0.2435 Aragonite 5.772126
33.631 3.3462 265.4 565.4 0.2583 Quartz 44.40355
35.299 3.19275 44.1 93.9 0.4047 Feldspar (Albite) 7.378283
37.264 3.02987 153 933.6 0.4535 calcite 25.59813
38.978 2.90148 33.7 205.4 0.3847 dolomite 5.63828
41.984 2.7022 26.1 114.5 0.3159 pyrite 4.366739
45.75 2.49027 32.5 212.1 0.4647 -
48.022 2.37893 18.2 65.7 0.3456 -
50.202 2.28189 35.6 182.6 0.4741 -
52.621 2.18399 14 85.6 0.4748 -
54.073 2.1296 16.9 115.4 0.4089 -
194
Core 3 sample 5

29.34 3.82237 62 12618.7 0 - 0
33.077 3.40061 135.4 1153.3 0.5883 Aragonite 28.57143
37.638 3.00084 147.2 2238.7 0.9571 calcite 31.06141
41.962 2.70351 97.4 2053.3 1.6 Pyrite 20.55286
45.833 2.48598 88.5 7870.7 2.4 -
47.2 2.41793 55.7 4952.3 2.4 -
48.133 2.37377 77 12202.7 2.4 -
48.993 2.3346 74.1 11749.6 2.4 -
50.315 2.27713 64.9 10287.2 2.4 -
52.433 2.19125 55.1 11308 2.4 -
54.681 2.1077 68.2 8512 2.4 -
195
Core 3 sample 6

14.55 7.64437 132 1633.3 0.9556 Gypsum 12.18387
23.8 4.69447 63 12718.7 0.9556 -
26.259 4.26147 110.1 1826.7 1.3333 -
28.283 3.96212 58.1 963.7 1.3333 -
29.425 3.81158 70.3 1165.4 1.3333 -
30.395 3.69263 74 15790.7 1.3333 -
33.013 3.40701 115.7 24685.7 0.858 Aragonite 10.67934
33.609 3.34829 223.7 1048 0.3827 Quartz 20.64796
35.297 3.19295 117.6 551.2 0.7971 Albite 10.85472
37.278 3.02882 154.2 2156 0.9352 calcite 14.23297
39.1 2.89281 104.3 14274.7 6.8 dolomite 9.6271
40.027 2.82849 92.7 12688.9 6.8 Halite 8.556397
41.25 2.7481 65.1 8920.1 6.8 -
41.927 2.7057 82 14721.3 6.8 -
45.756 2.48998 84.7 11344 6.8 -
47.285 2.41385 61.3 8213.8 6.8 -
48.019 2.37909 70.3 9414.5 6.8 -
48.748 2.34561 71.3 7760 6.8 -
196
Core 3 sample 7

13.166 8.44383 79.8 1217.3 0.6667 Illite 8.144519
14.522 7.65891 140.5 1217.3 0.6667 Gypsum 14.33966
26.186 4.27326 73.2 12713.3 0.6667 -
29.429 3.81109 72.6 12608.9 0.6667 -
30.288 3.70546 76.8 15068 0.6667 -
33.012 3.40712 111.5 21874.5 0.5117 Aragonite 11.37987
33.56 3.35302 237 1069.3 0.3567 Quartz 24.18861
34.574 3.25758 154 694.7 0.6307 Feldspar (othoclase ) 15.71749
37.278 3.02882 154.1 2069.3 0.9048 Calcite 15.7277
38.984 2.90106 84.1 1129 0.9048 dolomite 8.583384
40.087 2.82442 74 993.6 0.9048 Halite 7.552562
41.9 2.70735 85.3 14253.3 0.9048 pyrite 8.705858
44.313 2.56673 58.9 9842.8 0.9048 -
45.8 2.48769 84 12822.7 0.9048 -
47.345 2.41094 61 9316.6 0.9048 -
48.1 2.37531 74.5 12541.3 0.9048 -
48.816 2.34258 66.1 11123.1 0.9048 -
50.286 2.27836 65.4 11001.8 0.9048 -
52.333 2.19514 59 9957.3 0.9048 -
197
Core 3 sample 8

26.447 4.23183 63.2 11172 0 -
29.952 3.74602 59.3 12373.3 0 - 0
33.179 3.39041 132.2 1036 0.563 Aragonite 19.53598
33.856 3.32457 98.4 771 0.8111 Quartz 14.54116
35.129 3.20768 70.1 549.4 0.9972 Albite 10.3591
37.518 3.01011 126.3 2124 1.0593 calcite 18.66411
40.2 2.8168 62 12397.3 1.0593 Halite 9.16211
42.013 2.70037 93.4 2062.7 1.7222 pyrite 13.80228
45.919 2.48159 82.2 11818.7 1.7222 -
47.352 2.41065 57.8 8316.8 1.7222 -
48.147 2.37315 82.4 9737.3 1.7222 -
48.964 2.33591 72.2 0 0 -
50.407 2.27323 61.1 0 0 -
198
Core 3 sample 9

29.776 3.76761 63.4 13272 0 - 0
32.924 3.41594 140.3 1076 0.5172 Aragonite 17.68785
33.446 3.36411 81 621.4 1.5387 Quartz 10.2118
34.15 3.29679 93.4 716.4 2.0495 -
34.747 3.24188 110.6 4132 2.5603 feldspar (orthoclase) 13.94352
37.525 3.00962 135.2 2118.7 0.9769 calcite 17.04488
38.812 2.91343 84.1 1318.3 0.9769 dolomite 10.60262
39.956 2.83331 56.8 889.9 0.9769 Halite 7.160867
41.773 2.71519 91.8 13505.3 0.9769 pyrite 11.57337
45.633 2.49629 87.9 12505.3 0.9769 -
46.993 2.42799 60.9 8666.3 0.9769 -
47.882 2.38549 82.3 12152 0.9769 -
48.752 2.34545 68.6 10136.1 0.9769 -
50.592 2.26548 62.1 9442.7 0.9769 -
52.253 2.19826 62.2 7386.7 0.9769 -
199
Core 4 sample 1

12.995 8.55463 108.2 2074.4 0.421 Illite 11.9969
14.5 7.6705 329.4 2074.4 0.421 Gypsum 36.5229
23.339 4.78594 11.8 86.1 0.5672 -
25.977 4.30701 53.8 284.7 0.3977 -
26.474 4.22749 24.6 130.1 0.3204 Geothite
29.273 3.83091 219.3 603.1 0.2431 - 0
31.24 3.59516 12.6 35.8 0.2209 -
32.723 3.43638 37.8 107.2 0.2347 Aragonite 4.191152
33.409 3.36782 113.4 315.8 0.2485 Quartz 12.57346
feldspar
34.419 3.27179 75.6 210.4 0.518 (orthoclase ) 8.382304
36.383 3.10069 54.2 150.8 0.6528 Albite 6.009535
36.983 3.05207 68.8 695.9 0.7875 calcite 7.62834
39.114 2.89185 34.3 134.3 0.3403 dolomite 3.803082
39.865 2.83952 27.6 108.1 0.4911 halite 3.060206
41.957 2.70385 28 221.2 0.6419 Pyrite 9.080829
44.596 2.5513 10.3 81.1 0.5279 -
45.519 2.50222 21.6 114 0.4139 -
47.078 2.42386 11.7 11.4 0.1928 Gypsum
48.534 2.35536 14.9 95.4 0.4807 Gypsum
49.875 2.29589 17.6 79.7 0.3828 Gypsum
51.464 2.22963 13.6 42.5 0.2822 feldspar (orthoclase )
200
Core 4 sample 2

13.631 8.1568 8.6 47.9 0.2271 Illite 1.565344
14.954 7.43883 18.4 47.9 0.2271 Gypsum 3.349108
26.664 4.198 81.9 231.4 0.259 Geothite 14.90717
29.492 3.80305 19.5 90.8 0.3681 -
30.795 3.64586 23.6 49.8 0.2012 - 0
33.522 3.35674 33.6 70.8 0.2302 Aragonite 6.115763
34.025 3.30859 184.3 523.8 0.2591 Quartz 33.54569
37.685 2.99726 158 621.4 0.3496 calcite 28.75865
39.502 2.86453 25.1 141.7 0.3957 dolomite 4.56862
40.572 2.79205 16.5 93.3 0.3907 halite 3.003276
42.401 2.67683 23 122.1 0.3857 Pyrite 4.186385
46.233 2.46564 35.8 193.6 0.4203 Aragonite
46.699 2.44242 16.5 89.4 0.3725 Gypsum
48.478 2.35791 16 64.1 0.3247 Gypsum
49.3 2.32096 11.4 45.8 0.3437 Gypsum
50.654 2.26287 36.1 153.2 0.3627 Gypsum
201
Core 4 sample 3

26.082 4.28994 13.5 65 0.3724 -
29.071 3.85691 13.5 99.1 0.4811 - 0
32.807 3.42778 59.7 438 0.407 Aragonite 15.98394
33.471 3.36169 66.2 270.5 0.333 Quartz 17.72423
feldspar
34.152 3.2966 33.8 137.9 0.4481 (orthoclase ) 9.049531
37.144 3.03938 163.5 1182.2 0.5631 calcite 43.7751
38.943 2.90403 11.5 82.8 0.4291 dolomite 3.078983
41.726 2.71812 38.8 119.1 0.2951 Pyrite 10.38822
43.811 2.59471 8.6 34.8 0.2911 -
45.541 2.50108 38.5 202.7 0.4232 -
47.095 2.42301 14.6 76.6 0.3812 Aragonite
47.811 2.38882 23.6 92.2 0.3392 Gypsum
48.608 2.35197 18.2 71.2 0.4174 Gypsum
49.938 2.29319 19.3 121.8 0.4956 gypsum
202
Core 4 sample 4

26.125 4.28301 60.1 12293.3 0 - 0
29 3.8662 63 13493.3 0 -
32.864 3.42203 116.8 25010.1 0.3444 Aragonite 17.86752
33.469 3.36194 132 1182.7 0.6889 Quartz 20.19275
feldspar
34.101 3.30143 87.2 781.3 0.8713 (orthoclase ) 13.33945
37.427 3.0172 121.8 2036 1.0538 calcite 18.6324
38.71 2.92083 56.3 940.9 1.0538 dolomite 8.612513
39.933 2.83483 59 13505.3 1.0538 halite 9.025547
41.758 2.71612 80.6 13326.7 1.0538 Pyrite 12.32981
45.643 2.4958 74.4 12706.7 1.0538 Aragonite
47.029 2.42625 55.9 9549.3 1.0538 Aragonite
47.942 2.38269 76.1 12374.7 1.0538 -
48.715 2.34712 68.9 11202.9 1.0538 -
49.952 2.29261 64.1 10429 1.0538 -
52.456 2.19038 59.1 12281.3 1.0538 Aragonite
54.567 2.11178 59.3 12214.7 1.0538 -
58.4 1.98422 88 2720 2.4667 -
60.744 1.91456 61.4 1897.3 2.4667 -
61.733 1.88682 77 11885.3 2.4667 -
64.26 1.82013 68 9206.7 2.4667 -
203
Core 4 sample 5

32.977 3.41066 62.8 694.7 0.7333 Aragonite 26.9066
feldspar
34.255 3.287 47.5 525.3 0.7742 (orthoclase ) 20.35133
37.589 3.00465 79.1 1041.3 0.815 calcite 33.89032
41.805 2.71324 44 942.7 1.4667 Pyrite 18.85176
45.667 2.49456 38 6237.3 1.4667 -
48 2.37997 38 5693.3 1.4667 -
48.826 2.34211 31.6 4729.1 1.4667 -
50.667 2.26234 32 4450.7 1.4667 -
204
Core 4 sample 6

29.167 3.84459 60.4 12160 0 -
29.826 3.76146 57.5 11584 0.9597 -
30.889 3.63497 55.6 11191.6 1.4396 - 0
33 3.40834 113 2808 1.9194 Aragonite 20.71494
33.588 3.35031 66.8 1659.2 1.4523 Quartz 12.24565
feldspar
34.325 3.28055 82.8 2058.6 1.2187 (orthoclase ) 15.17874
37.567 3.00636 134.3 2150.7 0.9852 calcite 24.61962
40.033 2.82804 63 12472 0.9852 dolomite 11.54904
41.886 2.70823 85.6 12698.7 0.9852 Pyrite 15.69203
43.976 2.58545 50.7 7523.2 0.9852 -
45.744 2.49055 77.1 10422.7 0.9852 -
48.067 2.37686 71 7892 0.9852 -
48.883 2.33954 68.7 0 0 Aragonite
205
Core 4 sample 7

13.147 8.4559 79 1170.7 0.3364 Illite 8.072757
14.487 7.67717 254.9 1170.7 0.3364 Gypsum 26.04741
22.948 4.8662 62.3 12532 0.3364 -
26.015 4.30078 74.3 12504 0.3364 -
29.389 3.81615 79.1 13578.7 0.3364 -
32.901 3.41834 103.4 17747.4 0.4219 Aragonite 10.56611
33.524 3.3566 146.4 1085.3 0.5074 Quartz 14.96015
feldspar
34.11 3.30055 80.5 597.2 1.2093 (orthoclase ) 8.226037
36.63 3.08053 66.8 495.4 1.5602 Albite 6.826078
37.338 3.02411 102 2962.7 1.9111 calcite 10.42305
39.149 2.88932 62.2 1807.4 1.9111 dolomite 6.356019
41.833 2.71147 83.4 13330.7 1.9111 Pyrite 8.522379
45.75 2.49026 77.1 12605.3 1.9111 Gypsum
47.111 2.42224 59.2 9673.6 1.9111 Gypsum
48 2.37997 71 12250.7 1.9111 Gypsum
48.724 2.34673 63.8 11002 1.9111 Aragonite
50.6 2.26513 60 12385.3 1.9111 Gypsum
52.5 2.18866 55.1 12092 1.9111 dolomite
54.569 2.11169 56.9 12481.3 1.9111 -
55.433 2.08132 63.8 11328 1.9111 -
58.5 1.98113 84.5 8129.3 1.9111 -
206
Core 4 sample 8

14.54 7.6496 73 13630.7 0 Gypsum 15.04844
26.221 4.26761 88.3 11534.7 0 Gypsum
29.367 3.81897 60.6 12262.7 0 -
29.803 3.76435 58.8 11903.2 0.9876 -
30.864 3.6379 54 10929.2 1.4814 -
33.027 3.40563 113.7 2874.7 1.9752 Aragonite 23.43847
34.136 3.29812 82.1 2075.9 1.4726 Quartz 16.92435
37.533 3.00894 131 1926.7 0.9699 calcite 27.00474
41.879 2.70863 85.3 12586.7 0.9699 Pyrite 17.584
45.817 2.48683 76.3 11912 0.9699 Gypsum
47.136 2.42102 59.2 9256.1 0.9699 gypsum
48.1 2.37531 70.3 11564 0.9699 gypsum
48.817 2.34253 64.9 10677.9 0.9699 -
50.585 2.26573 60.5 9951.3 0.9699 feldspar (orthoclase )
52.519 2.18792 57.2 7060 0.9699 Aragonite
207
Core 4 sample 9

26.3 4.25501 59.3 11653.3 0 - 0
29.083 3.85536 68.3 12318.7 0 -
32.97 3.41133 81.5 14711.3 1.1524 Aragonite 10.51613
33.619 3.34739 110.7 3404 2.3048 Quartz 14.28387
feldspar
34.238 3.28859 71.9 2211.8 1.8904 (orthoclase ) 9.277419
34.745 3.24204 105.5 3243.1 1.4761 Albite 13.6129
37.274 3.02914 215.2 1869.3 0.6474 calcite 27.76774
38.802 2.91415 63.7 553.5 0.6474 dolomite 8.219355
40.07 2.82556 59.6 517.8 0.6474 halite 7.690323
41.9 2.70735 66.9 13498.7 0.6474 Pyrite 8.632258
45.744 2.49055 82.1 11736 0.6474 -
48.067 2.37686 59 9445.3 0.6474 -
50.256 2.27963 70.1 7308 0.6474 Aragonite
208
Core 5 sample 1

13.212 8.41467 116.7 2539.2 0.5017 Illite 24.15649
14.634 7.60095 328.4 2539.2 0.5017 Gypsum 67.97764
23.548 4.74408 13.7 41.4 0.2592 -
26.08 4.29032 91.9 352.2 0.3322 -
26.724 4.18869 25.7 98.3 0.2948 Geothite 5.31981
29.467 3.80626 223 629 0.2574 -
30.417 3.69007 15.4 43.5 0.2616 -
33.102 3.39808 27.7 78.1 0.2638 Argonite 5.733803
33.6 3.34918 91.2 269.5 0.2659 Quartz 18.87808
feldspar
34.445 3.26939 16.4 48.6 0.2844 (orthoclase ) 3.394742
35.369 3.18667 16.4 48.6 0.303 Albite 3.394742
36.772 3.06899 99.6 394.8 0.3401 Calcite 20.61685
39.325 2.87692 35.9 235.8 0.5165 dolomite 7.431174
42.234 2.68692 39.8 188.3 0.385 Pyrite 8.23846
43.761 2.5975 9.3 44 0.383 -
45.713 2.49215 18.2 77.3 0.381 gypsum
48.1 2.37531 12.6 34.7 0.25 Gypsum
209
Core 5 sample 2

14.591 7.62305 53.5 113.8 0.2546 Gypsum 10.33217
25.082 4.45809 10.2 21.6 0.2793 - 0
26.258 4.26177 28 97.5 0.304 -
29.228 3.83676 12.6 43.7 0.2963 -
33.112 3.39712 45.4 157.7 0.2885 Aragonite 8.767864
33.644 3.34493 154.4 558.7 0.273 Quartz 29.81846
feldspar
34.692 3.24682 41 148.5 0.3154 (orthoclase ) 7.918115
35.352 3.18815 15.5 56 0.3365 Albite 2.993434
35.728 3.1556 9.2 33.3 0.3471 -
37.261 3.03017 132.2 645.8 0.3577 Calcite 25.53109
39.101 2.89276 38.1 217.7 0.4269 dolmite 7.358053
41.982 2.70227 37.7 152.7 0.3288 Pyrite 7.280803
43.976 2.58542 7.3 29.5 0.3732 -
45.848 2.48523 38.7 209.3 0.4176 Gypsum
48.078 2.37636 20.6 228.5 0.7149 Gypsum
48.915 2.33813 14.5 160.9 0.5387 Aragonite
feldspar
50.217 2.28127 29.9 134.3 0.3626 (orthoclase )
52.435 2.19118 14.9 66.5 0.3097 dolomite
55.167 2.09059 24.2 271.9 0.8289 -
58.592 1.9783 32.7 156 0.3581 -
210
Core 5 sample 3

26.344 4.24796 65.2 11717.3 0 -
29.414 3.81293 62.2 13189.3 0 - 0
29.96 3.74497 61.3 13007.8 0.4405 -
30.631 3.6649 58.5 12421.6 1.1012 -
33.156 3.39279 141.7 3205.3 1.7619 Aragonite 19.05082
33.732 3.33647 126.9 2871.5 1.5878 Quartz 17.06104
feldspar
34.402 3.27336 98.9 2238.7 1.4137 (orthoclase ) 13.29659
35.324 3.19055 58.9 1332.4 1.2396 Albite 7.918795
36.078 3.126 55.4 1254.3 1.1526 -
37.336 3.02431 100 2262.1 1.1091 Calcite 13.44447
37.808 2.98789 131.1 2088 1.0656 -
39.096 2.89313 59.6 949 1.6411 dolomite 8.012907
40.101 2.82345 56.5 899.5 1.785 Halite 7.596128
41.526 2.73064 61 971 1.9289 -
42.013 2.70042 101.3 2741.3 2.2167 Pyrite 13.61925
45.919 2.48159 87.2 12380 2.2167 -
47.393 2.40868 64.8 9198 2.2167 -
48.156 2.37271 91.1 9693.3 2.2167 -
48.901 2.33874 78.6 0 0 Aragonite
feldspar
50.242 2.28021 62.3 0 0 (orthoclase )
211
Core 5 sample 4

33.085 3.39984 126.8 1722.7 1.0667 Aragonite 21.80567
33.553 3.35377 76.4 1037.3 1.0883 Quartz 13.13844
feldspar
34.238 3.28857 95.7 1299.7 1.11 (orthoclase ) 16.45744
37.7 2.99612 129 2336 1.1533 dolomite 22.18401
40.1 2.82353 57.3 12921.3 1.1533 halite 9.853826
41.985 2.70212 96.3 1978.7 1.5333 Pyrite 16.56062
45.875 2.48384 90.1 9462.7 5.7 - 0
47.361 2.41017 57.4 6031.1 5.7 -
48.133 2.37377 85 12134.7 5.7 -
48.928 2.33751 72.4 10339.1 5.7 Aragonite
feldspar
50.299 2.27777 59.4 8481.9 5.7 (orthoclase )
50.933 2.25128 62 12364 5.7 -
52.258 2.19807 57.4 11455.1 5.7 dolomite
54.742 2.10552 70.1 10548 5.7 -
55.882 2.06595 59.8 8999 3.3056 -
56.959 2.03005 57 8583.8 2.1083 -
58.642 1.97675 99 1229.3 0.9111 -
212
Core 6 sample 1

29.301 3.82728 10.3 32.1 0.1989 -
30.415 3.69027 17.2 32.1 0.1989 - 0
33.11 3.39737 74.4 139 0.2336 Aragonite 18.81639
33.641 3.34522 122.5 359.2 0.2682 Quartz 30.98128
feldspar
34.347 3.27844 40.5 118.7 0.5226 (orthoclase ) 10.24279
37.707 2.99559 93.1 1131.2 0.7769 calcite 23.54578
38.917 2.90588 14.5 176.5 0.6549 dolomite 3.667172
40.194 2.81719 16.2 107.5 0.5329 halite 4.097117
41.488 2.73305 9.6 63.5 0.4416 -
41.983 2.70222 34.2 139.8 0.3504 Pyrite 8.649469
44.233 2.57114 7.1 39.8 0.3775 -
45.833 2.48599 36.8 266.8 0.6452 Quartz
48.14 2.37344 27.6 90.3 0.3078 Pyrite
49.009 2.33391 21.4 70.1 0.3765 Aragonite
50.437 2.27198 15.7 51.3 0.4109 Pyrite
52.466 2.18996 13.9 87.3 0.4453 dolomite
55.833 2.06759 16.1 408.3 1.6143 -
213
Core 6 sample 2

26.215 4.26852 16.7 46.9 0.2115 - 0
29.433 3.81058 13.6 78.4 0.4351 -
33.044 3.40397 75.8 227.4 0.2787 Aragonite 22.27446
33.597 3.34945 42.4 127.2 0.4976 Quartz 12.45959
feldspar
34.296 3.28317 43.1 129.2 0.607 (orthoclase ) 12.6653
35.345 3.18876 5 15.1 0.6617 feldspar (Albite ) 1.469292
36.131 3.1216 5 15.1 0.6891 -
37.662 2.99903 104.9 1051.4 0.7164 Calcite 30.82574
38.839 2.91146 14 140.8 0.5365 dolomite 4.114017
39.975 2.83198 11.4 114 0.4465 halite 3.349985
41.9 2.70735 43.7 180.2 0.3565 Pyrite 12.84161
45.82 2.48666 36.4 318.5 0.6795 -
47.14 2.42086 15.4 134.4 0.5137 Aragonite
48.085 2.376 27.3 115.1 0.348 Aragonite
48.8 2.3433 25.1 105.5 0.7028 feldspar
50.5 2.26932 14.1 234.4 1.0575 Pyrite
52.4 2.19254 16 138.7 0.644 dolomite
214
Core 6 sample 3

23.867 4.68155 51 9598.7 0 -
26.267 4.26032 57 9589.3 0 - 0
29.367 3.81897 54.3 9978.7 0 -
33.047 3.40366 82.7 4228 4.1333 Aragonite 17.69741
33.723 3.33733 54.7 2798.5 3.3569 Quartz 11.70554
feldspar
34.352 3.27801 65.6 3352.7 2.5806 (orthoclase ) 14.03809
35.071 3.21287 56.2 2873.4 1.8042 feldspar (Albite ) 12.02654
36.239 3.11261 50 2558.9 1.416 -
37.227 3.03277 89.3 4565.9 1.2219 Calcite 19.10978
37.627 3.00174 91.8 1522.7 1.0278 -
38.486 2.93721 50.9 844.5 1.0278 -
39.115 2.89178 52.7 873.7 1.0278 dolomite 11.27755
41.922 2.70598 66.1 10238.7 1.0278 Pyrite 14.14509
44 2.5841 51 9857.3 1.0278 -
45.767 2.48941 65.6 9922.7 1.0278 -
48.033 2.37841 59.3 9829.3 1.0278 Aragonite
48.999 2.33433 56.8 9418.3 1.0278 -
50.168 2.28337 55.6 9224 1.0278 Pyrite
52.533 2.18737 52 6673.3 1.0278 dolomite
54.1 2.1286 54.4 5157.3 1.0278 -
215
Core 6 sample 4

29.874 3.7555 13.3 11.9 0.1432 -
33.009 3.4074 80.9 259.4 0.3146 Aragonite 24.47066
33.509 3.35803 28.8 92.4 0.5123 Quartz 8.711434
feldspar
34.184 3.29359 50.3 161.3 0.6111 (orthoclase ) 15.21476
37.54 3.00843 99.4 1046.7 0.71 Calcite 30.06655
39.396 2.87193 4.8 50.2 0.4886 dolomite 1.451906
40.074 2.82528 14.3 46 0.2672 halite 4.325469
41.423 2.73715 13.6 43.6 0.2843 -
41.904 2.70708 52.1 164.8 0.3014 Pyrite 15.75923
45.75 2.49028 35.9 207.5 0.4446 Aragonite
47.213 2.4173 15.5 89.8 0.4404 Aragonite
48.034 2.37839 30.6 188.8 0.4362 Aragonite
48.661 2.34957 25.6 158.1 0.8919 Aragonite
50.109 2.28589 15.8 97.7 1.1198 feldspar
50.784 2.25745 15.2 93.8 1.2337 Pyrite
52.633 2.18353 11 210.9 1.3476 dolomite
54.683 2.10762 19 137.1 0.4854 Aragonite
55.61 2.07524 16.2 116.8 0.3883 -
216
Core 6 sample 5

29.108 3.85221 15.7 81 0.2201 - 0
30.352 3.69781 41.5 81 0.2201 -
32.954 3.41298 68.8 134.2 0.226 Aragonite 12.92019
33.59 3.35016 194.7 411.6 0.2319 Quartz 36.56338
feldspar
34.321 3.28084 39.7 84 0.4562 (orthoclase ) 7.455399
36.202 3.1157 7.3 15.4 0.5684 Albite 1.370892
37.284 3.02836 143.6 1363.8 0.6805 Calcite 26.96714
40.085 2.82456 41 160.2 0.3105 dolomite 7.699531
41.9 2.70732 37.4 116.1 0.3034 Pyrite 7.023474
44.065 2.58048 6.2 19.2 0.3802 -
45.767 2.48941 48.1 293 0.4569 -
47.142 2.42075 12.3 75.2 0.3729 Aragonite
48.022 2.37893 27.5 87.7 0.2888 Aragonite
48.851 2.34097 20.2 64.3 0.4764 Aragonite
50.4 2.27353 21.8 183.3 0.664 Pyrite
217
Core 6 sample 6

13.083 8.4971 28.8 77.7 0.2813 Illite 3.169014
14.609 7.61383 21.3 76.1 0.296 Gypsum 2.34375
17.369 6.41117 17.4 89.6 0.4373 -
23.864 4.68212 13.5 67 0.3772 -
26.291 4.25642 165.2 458 0.2596 -
27.655 4.05034 31.1 86.1 0.2552 -
30.448 3.68636 89.9 191.3 0.2508 Aragonite 9.892165
33.633 3.34597 329.3 1882.8 0.4046 Quartz 36.2346
feldspar
34.749 3.24171 139.5 797.5 0.3824 (orthoclase ) 15.34991
35.347 3.18855 121.9 697.1 0.3712 Albite 13.41329
37.278 3.02882 63.4 308.6 0.3601 calcite 6.976232
39.106 2.89242 88.8 474.7 0.4111 dolomite 9.771127
40.133 2.82128 25.9 138.5 0.8705 halite 2.849912
46.4 2.45727 32 114.2 0.3333 Aragonite, gypsum
50.219 2.28118 36.6 142 0.3108 Pyrite
51.244 2.23853 24.9 0 0 Gypsum
218
Core 6 sample 7

26.275 4.25892 32 96.9 0.2941 -
29.003 3.8658 14.4 43.6 0.2947 - 0
29.683 3.77913 28.2 84.6 0.2954 -
30.426 3.68901 13.9 41.9 0.3045 Aragonite 3.020426
33.63 3.34628 147 541.2 0.3136 Quartz 31.94263
feldspar
34.694 3.24667 34.1 125.7 0.4636 (orthoclase ) 7.409822
35.112 3.20918 26.5 97.6 0.5386 feldspar ( Albite ) 5.758366
37.265 3.02986 140 1074.2 0.6136 calcite 30.42156
39.072 2.89481 73.8 382.7 0.4123 dolomite 16.03651
39.966 2.83258 13.5 70 0.3169 halite 2.933507
41.913 2.70657 11.4 23.2 0.2215 Pyrite 2.477184
45.833 2.48598 27.8 320.7 0.8956 -
47.247 2.41566 12.2 140.1 0.7729 Aragonite
48.837 2.34159 11.3 129.8 0.7116 Aragonite
50.214 2.28139 29.6 255.5 0.6503 feldspar
219
Core 6 sample 8

24.891 4.49172 13.9 142.1 0.242 - 0
26.279 4.25843 51.7 142.1 0.242 -
27.029 4.1423 9.5 26.1 0.2925 Geothite 2.071974
27.68 4.04677 8.4 23 0.3051 -
29.074 3.85659 10.6 29.1 0.3177 -
30.411 3.69075 24.1 94.3 0.343 -
33.071 3.40126 29.5 115.3 0.2901 Aragonite 6.434024
33.65 3.34437 194.9 421.2 0.2373 Quartz 42.50818
feldspar
34.837 3.23378 39.5 85.3 0.3018 (orthoclase ) 8.615049
37.267 3.02969 113.4 541.7 0.3663 calcite 24.73282
39.1 2.89279 53 266.3 0.3992 dolomite 11.55943
41.996 2.70143 18.7 92.2 0.3892 Pyrite 4.078517
45.833 2.48597 25.9 183.8 0.5413 -
47.385 2.40905 14.5 102.7 0.388 -
48.137 2.37361 17.5 39.6 0.2346 Pyrite
48.872 2.34004 13.4 30.3 0.2936 Aragonite
50.25 2.27988 30 142.2 0.3527 Feldspar
52.286 2.19697 13.2 73.1 0.4874 Dolomite
55.017 2.09584 15.1 95.9 0.4776 -
220
Core 6 sample 9

24.559 4.55157 6 112.1 0.3974 - 0
26.334 4.24955 21.7 112.1 0.3974 -
29.4 3.81471 16.2 102.6 0.4458 -
31.134 3.60715 10.8 31.9 0.1871 -
33.062 3.40212 75 221.6 0.2165 Aragonite 20.20474
33.685 3.34095 106 305.3 0.2459 Quartz 28.55603
feldspar
34.511 3.26331 44.3 127.5 0.4975 (orthoclase ) 11.93427
37.748 2.99241 94.1 993 0.7491 Calcite 25.35022
38.956 2.90306 9.9 104.8 0.5577 dolomite 2.667026
41.992 2.70168 41.9 226.9 0.3664 Pyrite 44.45043
45.886 2.48326 37.7 250.3 0.4643 -
48.195 2.3709 32.3 196.8 0.4277 Aragonite
48.909 2.33837 28.4 173 0.6485 feldspar
50.341 2.27603 26.1 310.1 0.8694 feldspar
50.842 2.25507 18.8 224.1 1.0566 Pyrite
52.7 2.18095 9.1 185.8 1.2438 dolomite
54.817 2.10289 20.1 100.5 0.3489 -
55.963 2.06319 15.9 79.6 0.4656 -
221
Core 6 sample 10

26.275 4.25894 16.1 74.2 0.3697 Geothite 4.054394
29.941 3.74735 16.4 61.8 0.3381 -
33.133 3.39502 95 282.5 0.2805 Aragonite 23.92344
33.67 3.34239 51.9 154.3 0.4981 Quartz 13.06976
feldspar
34.373 3.27606 47 139.6 0.607 (orthoclase ) 11.83581
37.71 2.99538 103.6 1005.2 0.7158 Calcite 26.08915
39.029 2.89789 8.9 86.3 0.5725 dolomite 2.241249
40.215 2.8158 29.7 167.3 0.4291 halite 7.479224
42.05 2.69811 44.9 221.2 0.3484 Pyrite 11.30698
45.913 2.48188 40.2 291.7 0.55 -
47.374 2.40957 13.5 97.8 0.4694 Aragonite
48.167 2.37222 35.5 178.8 0.3889 Aragonite
49.043 2.33238 25.6 129.1 0.5595 feldspar
50.875 2.25369 17.1 173.9 0.7302 feldspar
52.614 2.18424 14.2 69.1 0.4222 dolomite
222
Core 7 sample 1

13.112 8.47866 73.7 1762.9 0.3861 Illite 9.512132
14.502 7.66945 317.4 1762.9 0.3861 Gypsum 40.96541
26.143 4.28013 48.8 294 0.464 Gypsum
29.396 3.81529 150.4 427.2 0.2441 Gypsum 0
30.305 3.70336 21.3 60.4 0.2477 -
33.542 3.35483 194.7 559 0.2514 quartz 25.12907
feldspar
34.501 3.26431 28.3 81.3 0.2846 (orthoclase) 3.652555
35.282 3.19423 31.8 106.4 0.3179 feldspar (Albite) 4.104285
36.639 3.07974 48.5 162.3 0.3779 gypsum
37.177 3.03674 77.2 454.9 0.4379 calcite 9.963862
39.272 2.88065 28.3 166.8 0.3553 dolomite 3.652555
Feldspar
40.044 2.82732 76.4 236.7 0.2727 (orthoclase)
42.192 2.68945 23.4 80.1 0.3076 Pyrite 3.020134
45.648 2.49552 18.3 136.3 0.5556 Gypsum
223
Core 7 sample 2
Identified
2Theta d (A) Height Area FWHM mineral WT%
24.849 4.49927 21.8 184.7 0.6198 - 0
26.226 4.26673 27.3 138.1 0.4165 Geothite 9.030764
30.233 3.71195 22.5 99.1 0.3589 -
33.602 3.34898 89.1 273.1 0.2922 quartz 29.47403
feldspar
34.706 3.24561 19 58.3 0.3164 (orthoclase) 6.285147
35.257 3.19644 22.7 99.6 0.3406 Albite 7.509097
37.226 3.03288 76.4 382.1 0.4324 Calcite 25.27291
39.124 2.89107 52.5 269.4 0.4307 Dolomite 17.36685
40.153 2.81996 15.3 78.7 0.9224 Halite 5.061197
44.247 2.57041 17.4 325.7 1.4141 quartz
45.833 2.48598 17.3 280.9 1.1115 -
47.167 2.41955 16.8 110 0.5568 quartz
50.233 2.28058 17 110.6 0.4706 Albite
224
Core 7 sample 3

26.211 4.26922 21.2 86.8 0.3373 -
30.358 3.69709 20.2 112.2 0.466 -
33.559 3.35316 129.6 383 0.2839 quartz 30.38687
feldspar
34.538 3.26091 43.7 129.1 0.2816 (orthoclase) 10.24619
35.211 3.20046 66 205.8 0.2793 Albite 15.47479
37.214 3.03384 105.3 423.6 0.3448 calcite 24.68933
39.052 2.89625 52.3 377.6 0.5451 dolomite 12.2626
40.155 2.81984 12.8 92.8 0.3879 Halite 3.001172
41.942 2.70479 16.8 43.7 0.2308 Pyrite 3.939039
45.767 2.4894 19.9 186.1 0.6276 Gypsum
48.701 2.34777 11.4 97.9 0.4474 feldspar
50.18 2.28283 23.9 116.2 0.348 Albite 0
52.284 2.19706 14.1 138.5 0.63 Gypsum
54.055 2.13026 11.6 114.6 0.6233 quartz
55.033 2.09525 17.7 141.7 0.6166 -
225
Core 7 sample 4

26.19 4.27256 43 100.2 0.2372 - 0
29.066 3.85759 18.7 74.9 0.3563 anhydrite 4.066101
30.531 3.67656 13.5 54.1 0.3132 -
33.012 3.40712 22.9 91.4 0.2916 Aragonite 4.979343
33.588 3.35034 163.9 483.2 0.27 quartz 35.63818
34.666 3.24921 18.2 53.7 0.2884 feldspar (orthoclase) 3.957382
35.217 3.19992 16.7 49.1 0.3068 Albite 3.631224
37.228 3.03275 152.5 616.2 0.3436 calcite 33.15938
38.934 2.9047 35.1 226.1 0.4846 dolomite 7.632094
40.087 2.82442 13 83.8 0.4283 Halite 2.826701
41.934 2.70527 18.9 92.2 0.372 Magnesite, pyrite 4.109589
feldspar
44.073 2.58003 10.7 213.9 1.4543 (orthoclase)
45.797 2.48785 30.3 173.4 0.4234 Gypsum
47.989 2.3805 10.9 62.6 0.5535 Pyrite
48.768 2.34474 11.5 112.4 0.6835 anhydrite
50.189 2.28246 30.9 164 0.4027 feldspar (orthoclase)
52.123 2.20336 12 63.6 0.3112 Pyrite
53.148 2.16389 17.6 39.7 0.2197 -
55.15 2.09117 25.7 125.4 0.4349 -
226
Core 7 sample 5

22.3 5.00587 7 26.5 0.3264 Gypsum 1.247772
23.5 4.75346 8.3 26.5 0.3264 Gypsum
26.252 4.26261 13.6 36.2 0.2612 Gypsum 0
29.074 3.85651 18.8 75.9 0.3596 -
32.87 3.42148 47.2 190.8 0.3705 Aragonite 8.413547
33.537 3.35533 52.5 215.7 0.3814 quartz 9.358289
37.215 3.03372 169.5 954.8 0.4405 calcite 30.2139
38.947 2.90371 13.4 75.7 0.3464 dolomite 2.388592
40.044 2.82733 42.7 125.2 0.2523 Halite 7.611408
41.87 2.70918 29.7 114.9 0.3483 Magnesite, pyrite 5.294118
45.733 2.49113 41.4 266 0.466 Aragonite
47.139 2.4209 12.4 79.5 0.4454 Gypsum
48.033 2.37842 18.6 100.1 0.4247 Pyrite
48.812 2.34272 15.1 81.2 0.4447 Gypsum
50.233 2.28058 29.5 190.8 0.4646 Gypsum
52.2 2.20035 13.1 64.9 0.3585 Gypsum
227
Core 7 sample 6

14.494 7.67379 35.5 78.4 0.2263 Gypsum 7.011653
26.211 4.26919 44.8 129 0.2502 Gypsum
29.411 3.81333 20.1 139.2 0.5133 - 0
30.313 3.70237 19.8 137.1 0.3936 -
32.98 3.41035 25.6 176.8 0.3337 Aragonite 5.056291
33.564 3.35263 209.8 624.4 0.2738 quartz 41.43788
35.263 3.19591 31.8 137.1 0.3543 Albite 6.280861
37.211 3.03405 123.7 507.9 0.3458 calcite 24.43215
39.067 2.89517 66.7 399 0.4656 Gypsum 13.17401
42.046 2.69835 13.2 86.8 0.4398 pyrite 2.60715
45.833 2.48598 23 154.3 0.4812 Gypsum
46.23 2.4658 19.8 132.8 0.4604 calcite
47.98 2.3809 8.3 55.9 0.4396 Gypsum
48.813 2.34268 10.3 68.7 0.398 anhydrite
50.197 2.28212 36.7 148.7 0.3149 calcite
228
Core 7 sample 7

29.354 3.82053 14.2 255.6 0.3246 -
33.086 3.39972 78.2 255.6 0.3246 quartz 35.65891
34.215 3.29073 43.4 141.8 0.5045 -
37.351 3.02307 86.2 823.7 0.6844 calcite 39.30689
39.24 2.88287 8.8 83.7 0.5892 dolomite 4.012768
41.465 2.73449 15.3 146.3 0.494 Magnesite, pyrite
41.933 2.7053 46.1 151.6 0.3036 Pyrite 21.02143
43.993 2.58447 6.7 14.5 0.1711 quartz
45.878 2.4837 36.8 205.5 0.4227 calcite
47.149 2.42039 14.5 80.9 0.3813 Pyrite
48.127 2.37407 28.7 122.1 0.3399 -
48.879 2.33971 22.7 122.1 0.3399 quartz
229
Core 7 sample 8

29.167 3.84452 15.5 90.9 0.4459 -
29.886 3.75409 11.5 67.5 0.3822 - 0
33 3.40836 69.5 220.3 0.3185 Aragonite 20.18588
34.176 3.29437 44.7 141.7 0.4485 quartz 12.98286
35.166 3.20443 32.3 102.4 0.5135 feldspar 9.381353
37.24 3.0318 140.6 951 0.5785 calcite 40.83648
39.992 2.83086 17.1 48.6 0.2254 dolomite 4.966599
41.853 2.71026 40.1 180.7 0.3353 Pyrite 11.64682
45.7 2.49284 39 224.3 0.4524 Aragonite
47.211 2.41739 12 68.9 0.376 Pyrite
48.025 2.3788 31.6 116.7 0.2995 Pyrite
48.779 2.34423 27 99.9 0.2442 -
230
Core 8 sample 1

13.117 8.47535 84.3 1835.8 0.4044 Illite 14.85462555
14.5 7.67041 324.9 1835.8 0.4044 Gypsum 57.25110132
25.98 4.30649 65.1 250.2 0.3347 Gypsum
26.58 4.21097 18.8 72.4 0.293 Geothite 3.31277533
29.386 3.81648 161.1 352.3 0.2513 gypsum
33.513 3.35759 28.3 120.8 0.3605 Quartz 4.986784141
36.678 3.07661 68 217 0.3095 Gypsum
37.132 3.04027 39.8 126.8 0.3925 calcite 7.013215859
39.233 2.88337 44.2 273.4 0.4755 dolomite 7.788546256
42.118 2.69398 27.2 134.6 0.4495 Pyrite 4.792951542
45.5 2.50321 31.9 178.7 0.4444 Gypsum
50.167 2.28341 16.6 87.4 0.4167 Quartz
231
Core 8 sample 2

14.441 7.70171 11.6 68 0.5052 Gypsum 2.308457711
24.819 4.50464 10 705.3 0.4653 -
26.074 4.29126 64.5 1883.2 0.4253 Gypsum
29.087 3.85492 7.5 46.7 0.3822 Gypsum
30.175 3.71898 37.2 295.9 0.3391 dolomite
32.936 3.41473 26.5 111.1 0.2842 Aragonite 5.273631841
33.439 3.36488 285.7 577.9 0.2293 Quartz 56.85572139
feldspar
34.527 3.26193 20.7 55.1 0.2503 (orthoclase) 4.119402985
35.28 3.19443 19.1 734.7 0.2713 feldspar (Albite ) 3.800995025
37.205 3.03457 101.6 61.5 0.2767 calcite 20.21890547
39.046 2.89667 33.1 118.9 0.282 dolomite 6.587064677
39.966 2.83258 10 128.1 0.3255 halite 1.990049751
41.975 2.70273 20.7 490.7 0.369 Pyrite 4.119402985
44.569 2.55274 15.8 338 0.5075 gypsum
45.574 2.49939 18.2 119 0.486 calcite
46.159 2.46937 26.5 59.2 0.4881 Aragonite
47.917 2.38385 10 118 0.4902 Aragonite
48.586 2.35295 11.6 146 0.4944 Aragonite
50.093 2.28656 30.6 123.9 0.2665 calcite
232
Core 8 sample 3

26.214 4.26871 75.3 207.4 0.2619 -
30.375 3.69505 46.1 167.7 0.2963 -
32.986 3.40973 36.2 131.7 0.3068 Aragonite 5.707978556
33.567 3.35241 356.8 1218.4 0.3174 Quartz 56.25985494
feldspar
34.711 3.24515 75.9 259.1 0.3729 (orthoclase) 11.96783349
37.247 3.03122 106.1 520.8 0.4283 calcite 16.72973825
39.084 2.89395 37.8 292 0.534 dolomite 5.960264901
41.9 2.70735 21.4 115.1 0.4 Pyrite 3.374329864
46.327 2.46093 23 59 0.2442 Aragonite
48.047 2.37778 18.5 70.6 0.3313 Aragonite
50.145 2.28435 30.3 122.9 0.3517 feldspar (orthoclase)
54.1 2.12861 22.2 127.3 0.374 Aragonite
233
Core 8 sample 4

13.125 8.4702 313.7 1342.7 0.4503 Illite 28.72447578
14.634 7.60047 314.4 2621.8 0.5505 Gypsum 28.78857248
17.307 6.4337 12.6 42.9 0.2941 -
23.67 4.7199 10.7 36.4 0.2668 -
26.141 4.28037 67.9 231.1 0.2532 Gypsum
26.675 4.19622 67.9 175.6 0.2395 Geothite 6.217379361
29.437 3.81008 329.6 852.6 0.2489 Gypsum
33.604 3.34877 71 200.7 0.2583 Quartz 6.501236151
36.851 3.06264 71.1 201 0.2824 Gypsum
37.202 3.03474 126.5 382.3 0.2904 calcite 11.58318835
39.347 2.87539 115.2 350.3 0.286 dolomite 10.54848457
40.147 2.82039 31.9 96.9 0.289 halite 2.920977932
42.272 2.68459 37.6 116.7 0.292 Pyrite 3.442908159
44.917 2.53401 41.7 125.4 0.2511 Gypsum
45.666 2.49458 10.7 32.1 0.2588 Gypsum
234
Core 8 sample 5

11.214 9.908 11.7 68 0.5052 Illite 1.452153407
13.199 8.42294 121.2 705.3 0.4653 Illite
14.633 7.60103 331.4 1883.2 0.4253 Gypsum 41.13193496
17.389 6.40362 8.2 46.7 0.3822 -
26.197 4.27141 76.1 295.9 0.3391 gypsum
26.692 4.19365 28.6 111.1 0.2842 Geoithite 3.549708328
29.464 3.80659 288.8 577.9 0.2293 gypsum
30.379 3.6945 27.6 55.1 0.2503 -
33.611 3.34811 256.3 734.7 0.2713 Quartz 31.81084771
35.292 3.19333 41.6 118.9 0.282 feldspar (Albite ) 170.4918033
36.833 3.06413 44.9 128.1 0.3255 calcite 5.572793844
37.241 3.03173 114.4 490.7 0.369 Gypsum
39.309 2.87806 49.1 338 0.5075 Dolomite 6.094079682
42.301 2.68282 20.6 119 0.486 Pyrite 2.556782922
43.956 2.58653 10.3 59.2 0.4881 Gypsum
44.794 2.54056 20.4 118 0.4902 Gypsum
45.733 2.49112 22 146 0.4944 Gypsum
50.233 2.28058 24.4 140 0.4323 Quartz
235
Core 8 sample 6

14.419 7.71334 11.1 75.4 0.4122 Gypsum 2.149496514
15.481 7.18731 9.8 66.4 0.3705 -
26.1 4.28703 12.1 76.6 0.3655 Gypsum
29.035 3.86166 14.3 91 0.2825 -
30.279 3.70645 22.2 42.9 0.1996 -
32.814 3.42716 56.6 109.3 0.2296 Aragonite 10.96049574
33.507 3.35825 184.5 546.1 0.2596 Quartz 35.72811774
34.292 3.28354 32.6 96.6 0.4101 - 6.312935709
feldspar
34.621 3.25332 27.5 81.4 0.4854 (orthoclase) 5.325329202
34.949 3.22367 26.9 79.7 0.523 feldspar (Albite ) 5.209140201
37.156 3.03837 132.2 899.3 0.5606 calcite 25.60030984
38.975 2.90176 17.2 117 0.4565 Dolomite 3.330751356
39.632 2.85553 12.6 85.9 0.4044 -
41.811 2.71283 27.8 126.3 0.3523 Pyrite 5.383423703
43.85 2.5925 7.1 35.1 0.3333 gypsum
45.7 2.49284 31.4 194.5 0.4738 gypsum
46.203 2.46714 18.9 117.2 0.3613 Aragonite
47.189 2.41846 8.1 49.9 0.3051 Aragonite
47.995 2.38019 26 65.8 0.2489 Pyrite
48.668 2.34926 18.9 0 0 Aragonite
236
Core8 sample 7

14.275 7.79104 10.5 92.4 0.5405 Gypsum 2.975347124
15.601 7.13208 12.2 92.4 0.5405 -
16.979 6.55699 8.1 61.2 0.4369 -
26.233 4.26563 11.3 51.1 0.3194 Gypsum
29.283 3.82962 15.1 101.3 0.5155 gypsum
33.116 3.39669 61.8 248.2 0.2997 Aragonite 17.51204307
33.732 3.3365 54.2 217.5 0.48 Quartz 15.35845849
37.328 3.02491 126.1 1122 0.6602 calcite 35.73250213
39.141 2.88989 15.7 139.5 0.4568 Dolomite 4.448852366
39.926 2.83531 8.9 78.8 0.3551 halite 2.521960895
40.275 2.81175 9.3 82.4 0.3042 -
41.986 2.70208 39.2 109.8 0.2533 Pyrite 11.1079626
43.504 2.61213 6.9 19.2 0.355 Quartz
45.867 2.48427 41 231.4 0.4567 Aragonite
47.343 2.41107 13.3 74.9 0.4543 Gypsum
48.148 2.3731 27.2 148.8 0.4519 Aragonite
49.088 2.33039 25.3 138.6 0.4926 Aragonite
50.376 2.27453 28.4 176.9 0.5333 gypsum
50.745 2.25906 19.3 119.9 0.4156 Pyrite
237
Core 8 sample 8

26.291 4.25642 80 11358.7 0 -
27.547 4.06589 54.2 7696.3 0 -
29.34 3.82237 62 12396 0 -
32.979 3.41045 111.8 22344.7 0.8627 Aragonite 16.66169896
33.62 3.34728 132.5 2822.7 1.7254 Quartz 19.7466468
feldspar
34.316 3.28133 78.8 1679.2 1.3619 (orthoclase) 11.74366617
37.278 3.02882 142.2 2190.7 0.9983 calcite 21.19225037
39.08 2.89426 58.7 904.4 0.9983 dolomite 8.748137109
40.073 2.82533 62 12428 0.9983 halite 9.239940387
41.891 2.70789 85 12624 0.9983 Pyrite 24.08614338
45.858 2.48474 84.1 11516 0.9983 Aragonite
48.189 2.37119 68.3 9353.5 0.9983 gypsum
50.027 2.28936 67.4 0 0 feldspar (orthoclase)
238
Core 8 sample 9

26.234 4.26549 9.5 29 0.2942 -
29.067 3.85753 11 202.4 1.3297 -
33.042 3.40411 63.9 250.3 0.342 Aragonite 19.5353103
33.686 3.34089 54.3 212.4 0.5453 Quartz 16.600428
feldspar
34.35 3.27821 37.5 146.7 0.6469 (orthoclase) 11.46438398
35.097 3.21058 8.4 33 0.6977 feldspar (Albite ) 2.568022012
37.255 3.03059 101.5 1100.1 0.7485 calcite 31.03026597
37.669 2.9985 87.5 948.1 0.6518 -
38.996 2.90019 15.8 171.7 0.5551 Dolomite 4.830327117
40.075 2.82521 8.1 87.7 0.4584 halite 2.47630694
41.887 2.70817 37.6 155.8 0.3617 Pyrite 11.49495567
45.783 2.48855 37.1 260 0.5242 -
47.294 2.4134 8.4 59 0.4413 -
48.023 2.37889 28.8 118.7 0.3583 Pyrite
48.954 2.33637 21.7 0 0 feldspar
50.198 2.28206 18.4 0 0 -
239
Core 8 sample 10

26.167 4.27631 11.5 67.7 0.45 - 0
29.384 3.81679 12.4 163.9 0.9761 -
33.017 3.40668 77.8 247.9 0.2918 Quartz 26.4986376
feldspar
34.243 3.28815 42.7 136.1 0.4985 (orthoclase) 14.54359673
35.47 3.17789 5.3 17 0.6019 feldspar (Albite ) 23.24561404
36.369 3.10183 5 15.9 0.6536 -
37.589 3.00465 104 1114.9 0.7053 calcite 35.42234332
39.232 2.88347 8 85.4 0.6161 Dolomite 2.72479564
40.033 2.82806 16.8 113.5 0.5268 halite 5.722070845
41.9 2.70733 39 167.7 0.3471 Pyrite 13.28337875
44.017 2.58315 6.1 9.7 0.1979 -
45.785 2.48847 41.2 206.2 0.4328 -
47.247 2.41566 9 44.8 0.4098 -
48.081 2.3762 27.1 118.8 0.3869 -
48.883 2.33954 22.8 118.8 0.3869 Pyrite
240
Core 9 sample 1
Identified
2Theta d (A) Height Area FWHM mineral WT%
11.058 10.04719 19.7 70.4 0.2645 Illlite 5
14.529 7.65525 13.8 38.2 0.1372 Gypsum 3.502538
26.22 4.26776 26.1 91.7 0.2111 Gypsum
27.144 4.12503 22.5 79.2 0.2785 -
29.141 3.84789 16.4 84.5 0.346 illite
30.491 3.68126 9.8 50.7 0.3137 Gypsum
32.782 3.43042 44.3 228.6 0.2975 Aragonite 11.24365
33.562 3.35287 81.4 252.6 0.2813 Quartz 20.6599
feldspar
34.191 3.29299 26.5 82.3 0.3346 (orthoclase) 6.725888
34.631 3.25237 69 214.2 0.3879 -
35.248 3.19723 40.7 126.3 0.4411 feldspar (Albite ) 10.32995
37.241 3.03175 115.4 745.8 0.4944 Calcite 29.28934
38.95 2.90351 28.9 165.4 0.4184 Dolomite 7.335025
40.004 2.83001 17.1 98 0.3717 halite
41.868 2.70935 23.3 93 0.325 Pyrite 5.913706
45.719 2.49186 33.2 240.8 0.55 Calcite
46.434 2.45555 21.8 158.4 0.475 Gypsum
47.227 2.41664 13.1 95.1 0.4562 Gypsum
47.932 2.38316 17.1 124.1 0.4375 Pyrite
48.781 2.34412 21.3 120.2 0.4 gypsum
50.119 2.28544 24.2 188.8 0.5695 feldspar
52.3 2.19644 13.2 68.2 0.3 Dolomite
241
Core 9 sample 2

15.402 7.22381 13 119.8 0.6363 Gypsum 2.129402
23.733 4.70747 12.9 86.2 0.4821 -
26.205 4.27016 112.2 325 0.2552 Gypsum
28.966 3.87064 13.9 60.8 0.2825 -
30.376 3.6949 45.1 219 0.3495 Aragonite 7.387387
33.567 3.35242 339.2 1406.8 0.3205 Quartz 55.56102
34.569 3.25803 23 95.4 0.3413 feldspar (orthoclase) 3.767404
35.176 3.20358 20.9 86.8 0.362 feldspar (Albite ) 3.423423
37.202 3.03475 80.5 436.3 0.4036 Calcite 13.18591
39.071 2.89484 88.8 382.4 0.3469 Dolomite 14.54545
242
Core 9 sample 3

30.434 3.68809 14.2 21.7 0.1935 - 0
32.978 3.4106 101.2 155 0.2184 Aragonite 25.33801
33.635 3.34579 130.8 286.9 0.2434 Quartz 32.74912
feldspar
34.402 3.27336 59.3 130 0.4794 (orthoclase) 14.84727
37.73 2.99385 48.1 461.6 0.7153 Calcite 12.04306
39.179 2.88719 10.1 97 0.5411 Dolomite 2.528793
41.442 2.73592 15.3 147.3 0.454 -
41.944 2.70461 49.9 192.9 0.3669 Pyrite 12.49374
47.309 2.4127 17 94.3 0.4063 feldspar (orthoclase)
48.113 2.37473 41.3 168 0.3368 gypsum
48.901 2.33874 33.5 136.1 0.2245 gypsum
50.731 2.25966 12.6 3.3 0.1121 Pyrite
243
Core 9 sample 4

11.053 10.05114 18.2 134.2 0.5284 Illite 4.629865
15.595 7.13484 17.5 203.4 0.8173 Gypsum 4.451793
22.28 5.01019 7.8 59.8 0.4828 -
23.863 4.68221 7.5 58 0.4346 -
24.936 4.4838 19.1 147.3 0.3864 -
26.288 4.25691 35.4 136.8 0.2901 gypsum
28.978 3.86902 9.9 38.3 0.3712 -
30.546 3.67484 12.6 48.8 0.4523 -
31.473 3.5692 13.9 94 0.5064 Aragonite 3.535996
33.651 3.3443 108.3 313.3 0.2597 Quartz 27.55024
feldspar
34.671 3.24875 27.7 80 0.3134 (orthoclase) 7.046553
35.166 3.20443 23.9 69.2 0.3402 feldspar (Albite) 6.079878
37.287 3.02811 74.7 387.1 0.3671 Calcite 19.0028
39.167 2.88806 97.8 488.4 0.3849 Dolomite 24.87917
42.032 2.69921 11.1 72.1 0.4696 Pyrite 2.823709
43.927 2.5882 17.5 659.9 2.4667 -
45.891 2.483 18.1 680.9 1.3996 Aragonite
46.433 2.4556 21.1 85.4 0.3326 Aragonite
47.459 2.4055 18.8 75.9 24.9012 Aragonite
244
Core 9 sample 5

26.189 4.27268 26.9 110.2 0.3512 -
29.083 3.85544 17 63.2 0.2948 -
30.367 3.69603 26.1 57 0.2327 -
32.907 3.41771 29.3 63.9 0.2538 Aragonite 6.508219
33.597 3.34943 192 565.9 0.2749 Quartz 42.64771
35.259 3.19621 22.1 65.2 0.321 feldspar (Albite ) 4.908929
37.214 3.03383 135.7 551.9 0.3671 Calcite 30.14216
39.117 2.89157 34.7 279 0.5248 Dolomite 7.707685
39.965 2.83271 16.1 129.3 0.4666 halite 3.576188
41.901 2.7073 20.3 98.3 0.4084 Pyrite 4.509107
45.8 2.48769 32.1 133.8 0.3787 -
46.238 2.46539 19.9 83.1 0.3697 -
47.284 2.41391 14.4 60 0.3652 Aragonite
47.981 2.38087 13.8 57.7 0.3641 Aragonite
48.765 2.34486 14.4 60 0.363 Aragonite
50.208 2.28164 43 209.1 0.3608 feldspar
245
Core 9 sample 6

29.167 3.8445 18.9 87.6 0.3487 - 0
29.803 3.76424 11 51 0.3428 -
32.987 3.40963 66.5 268.5 0.337 Aragonite 23.77547
37.248 3.03119 138.6 1118.4 0.5898 Calcite 49.55309
41.865 2.70952 38.5 113.9 0.2779 Pyrite 13.76475
45.742 2.49065 47.1 275.9 0.45 -
47.294 2.41341 14.1 82.5 0.4383 Aragonite
48 2.37997 24 128 0.4267 Aragonite
48.861 2.34051 23.3 128 0.4267 Aragonite
50.099 2.28629 21.6 128 0.4267 Aragonite
246
Core 9 sample 7

14.584 7.62642 55.3 168.6 0.2916 Gypsum 12.28889
26.234 4.26548 23.7 121.8 0.3756 Gypsum
28.066 3.99216 7.4 56.9 0.4755 -
29.35 3.82115 12.8 139.4 0.7083 -
33.029 3.40545 81.1 882.8 0.487 Aragonite 18.02222
33.608 3.34837 157.7 457 0.2656 Quartz 35.04444
34.232 3.28915 50.6 146.6 0.5187 Quartz
feldspar
34.748 3.24181 40.1 116.1 0.6453 (orthoclase) 8.911111
37.261 3.03012 53.3 627.4 0.7719 Calcite 11.84444
37.67 2.99843 46.6 548.4 0.7009 -
39.233 2.88336 15.8 144.2 0.6298 Dolomite 3.511111
40.076 2.82514 13 119.3 0.4991 halite
41.365 2.74077 16.5 151.4 0.4337 -
41.953 2.70405 46.7 225.8 0.3684 Pyrite 10.37778
43.428 2.61645 5 24.4 0.2841 -
44.267 2.56931 7 10.7 0.1998 -
45.833 2.48598 40.2 234.5 0.4428 Aragonite
46.436 2.45546 14.5 84.8 0.4144 -
47.468 2.4051 13.5 79 0.4003 Aragonite
48.1 2.37531 36.6 164.6 0.3861 Aragonite
48.929 2.3375 26.6 119.5 0.6169 Aragonite
50.767 2.25818 11.2 114 0.8477 Pyrite
247
Core 9 sample 8

14.61 7.61338 17.6 52 0.3002 Gypsum 5.929919
26.367 4.24444 11.3 44.1 0.355 -
30 3.74012 14.4 52.7 0.3212 -
31.21 3.59854 10.3 37.6 0.3408 -
33.147 3.39367 87.4 403.1 0.3604 Aragonite 29.44744
feldspar
34.336 3.27948 49 225.8 0.5381 (orthoclase) 16.50943
37.71 2.99534 60.4 625.7 0.7159 Calcite 20.3504
39.272 2.88065 9.4 97.6 0.5081 Dolomite 3.167116
40.205 2.81646 24.8 82.6 0.3003 halite 8.355795
42 2.7012 48.2 188.8 0.3515 Pyrite 16.23989
45.933 2.48086 33.8 200.8 0.4628 Aragonite
46.429 2.45582 25.7 153.1 0.5298 -
47.252 2.41545 11.9 70.9 0.5465 Aragonite
48.074 2.37651 28.8 171.2 0.5632 Aragonite
48.933 2.33729 31.8 228.6 0.5967 Aragonite
248
Core 9 sample 9

26.234 4.26558 11.4 77.9 0.4278 -
29.9 3.75241 10.9 263.4 1.8763 -
33.033 3.405 87.5 458.6 0.4214 Aragonite 27.61123
33.592 3.34993 53.7 281.6 0.5869 Quartz 16.94541
37.633 3.00123 59.1 576.2 0.7524 Calcite 18.64942
39.17 2.88784 8.5 82.6 0.5478 Dolomite 2.682234
40.154 2.81986 12 117.2 0.4455 halite 3.786683
41.385 2.73954 15.3 149.1 0.3944 -
41.884 2.7083 48.9 196.9 0.3432 Pyrite 15.43074
42.779 2.65423 7.4 29.7 0.2994 -
43.189 2.63021 5.7 23.2 0.2775 -
44.127 2.57705 8 26.9 0.2556 -
44.748 2.54307 5.7 19.3 0.393 -
45.755 2.49003 36.6 273.2 0.5305 Aragonite
47.209 2.41751 13.1 98 0.4483 Aragonite
48.056 2.37738 42.1 182.3 0.3661 Aragonite
48.849 2.34106 29.5 0 0 Aragonite
249
Core 9 sample 10

14.538 7.65074 67.4 147.2 0.2273 Gypsum 17.95418
29.383 3.81684 17.9 187.2 0.6231 Gypsum
31.33 3.5851 5.9 73.8 0.5563 -
33.023 3.40603 60.9 248.6 0.3064 Aragonite 16.2227
33.55 3.35403 27.8 113.3 0.4844 Quartz 7.405434
34.425 3.27127 33 134.7 0.5735 feldspar (orthoclase) 8.790623
37.261 3.03017 117.8 1096.6 0.6625 Gypsum 31.37986
39.062 2.89554 16.9 157.3 0.5131 Dolomite 4.501865
40.02 2.82892 19.9 111.1 0.3637 Halite 5.301012
41.249 2.74817 11.3 63 0.371 -
41.919 2.70615 31.7 170.6 0.3782 Pyrite 8.444326
44.129 2.57694 8.5 69.9 0.5448 -
45.773 2.48906 42.3 262.4 0.4956 Aragonite
48.016 2.37922 34.1 107.6 0.2857 Aragonite
48.773 2.3445 21.4 67.5 0.4283 Aragonite
50.252 2.27981 26.7 200 0.571 Quartz
52.233 2.19904 13 101 0.5454 feldspar (orthoclase)
250
Core 9 sample 11

29.133 3.84889 14 40.6 0.2119 -
33.016 3.40673 72.6 233.8 0.3043 Aragonite 21.77564
33.469 3.36196 36.3 116.9 0.4946 Quartz 10.88782
feldspar
34.137 3.29806 35.5 114.3 0.5897 (orthoclase) 10.64787
37.267 3.0297 126.7 1273.6 0.6849 Calcite 38.0024
40.112 2.8227 20.9 107.9 0.3807 halite 6.268746
41.86 2.70981 41.4 169.9 0.3235 Pyrite 12.41752
45.7 2.49285 43.3 227.1 0.4175 Aragonite
47.212 2.41735 11.7 61.6 0.3753 Aragonite
47.993 2.38028 28.5 113.4 0.3332 Aragonite
48.739 2.34603 21 83.4 0.5752 Aragonite
50.504 2.26917 19.5 236.5 0.8173 Quartz
52.368 2.19379 14.8 98.6 0.5189 feldspar
54.466 2.11539 20.6 137.5 0.6595 gypsum
55.2 2.08942 22 238.9 0.8 -
251
Core 10 sample 1

11.078 10.02865 18.7 78 0.3655 Illite 2.265294
14.541 7.64914 73.8 212.9 0.2498 Gypsum 8.940036
17.397 6.40068 9.9 28.6 0.2512 -
23.879 4.67924 8.8 25.4 0.2516 -
24.974 4.47704 13.2 38 0.2519 -
26.247 4.26347 90.1 260.5 0.2526 Gypsum
29.173 3.84374 15.4 44.4 0.2537 Gypsum
29.447 3.80877 15.4 44.4 0.2542 -
30.404 3.69162 81.8 233.2 0.2547 -
31.273 3.59148 14.3 40.7 0.2976 -
32.003 3.5116 9.9 28.2 0.319 Aragonite 1.199273
33.567 3.35241 369.7 1580.1 0.3404 Quartz 44.78498
34.559 3.25895 51.4 219.5 0.3874 feldspar (othocalase) 13.37371
35.198 3.2016 59 252.2 0.4109 feldspar (Albite)
37.234 3.03226 91.3 558.3 0.4345 calcite 11.05996
39.046 2.89663 98.9 653.9 0.4639 dolomite 11.98062
40.036 2.82783 36.1 238.7 0.5578 halite 4.373107
42.615 2.66401 16.7 144.7 0.6517 Pyrite 2.023016
45.605 2.49776 18.6 161.4 0.496 Gypsum
46.366 2.45895 24.8 115.7 0.3403 Aragonite
50.172 2.28317 40.4 181.5 0.3299 Gypsum
51.265 2.23771 13.2 59.2 0.3793 Gypsum
54.028 2.13123 16 86.1 0.4288 Gypsum
252
Core 10 sample 2

15.329 7.25803 16.3 192.2 0.9116 Gypsum 1.351588
24.89 4.49186 17.9 210.1 0.6001 gypsum
26.221 4.26753 40.8 120.8 0.2887 Gypsum
29.017 3.86403 10.7 31.8 0.306 feldspar (othocalase)
30.42 3.68972 34.4 126.1 0.3232 -
31.361 3.58162 13.4 49.2 0.2888 -
33.624 3.34682 288.5 801.9 0.2544 Quartz 53.72439
feldspar
34.737 3.24275 49.9 138.7 0.4544 (othocalase) 33.68715
35.3 3.19267 15.2 42.2 0.5545 feldspar (Albite)
37.283 3.02838 61.5 511.1 0.6545 calcite 11.45251
39.056 2.89595 65.4 383.4 0.422 Dolomite 12.17877
40.176 2.81838 30.3 177.7 0.3728 halite 5.642458
42.333 2.68088 9.9 57.8 0.3482 Pyrite 1.843575
50.312 2.27724 18.6 137.1 0.6012 Gypsum
52.2 2.20035 12 85.1 0.4994 Gypsum
54.056 2.13021 8.1 57.4 0.4692 -
55.317 2.08536 12.1 72.9 0.4389 -
253
Core 10 sample 3

29.478 3.80484 10.4 35 0.3333 -
31.167 3.60341 7.1 35 0.3333 -
33.092 3.39917 75.6 294.2 0.3123 Aragonite 24.14564
33.643 3.34503 28.1 109.2 0.394 Quartz 8.974768
feldspar
34.323 3.2807 43.8 170.2 0.4757 (othocalase) 8.156425
37.691 2.99679 105.9 822.3 0.6391 dolomite 19.72067
40.125 2.82181 18.3 57.6 0.3004 halite 3.407821
41.953 2.70406 41.4 204.3 0.3833 Pyrite 7.709497
43.417 2.61706 7.4 36.3 0.38 Gypsum
44.352 2.56459 7.4 36.3 0.3783 Aragonite
45.861 2.48455 41 168 0.3767 feldspar (othocalase)
46.307 2.46192 21.7 88.9 0.3676 Aragonite
47.327 2.41181 14 57.5 0.3586 Aragonite
48.113 2.37469 34.2 145.1 0.3405 Pyrite
49.027 2.33309 28.7 121.8 0.5452 Aragonite
50.8 2.2568 20 180.8 0.75 -
254
Core 10 sample 4

15.458 7.19766 11.1 134.3 0.2954 Gypsum 2.007233
26.146 4.27958 42.8 134.3 0.2954 Gypsum
28.878 3.88215 11.1 34.9 0.2779 Gypsum
30.274 3.70706 29.4 78.3 0.2605 -
31.241 3.595 9.4 25.2 0.259 -
31.917 3.52086 9.4 25.2 0.2583 -
32.845 3.42396 37.5 100.1 0.2579 Aragonite 6.781193
33.488 3.36003 274.2 768.1 0.2576 Quartz 49.58409
feldspar
34.533 3.26133 38.4 107.5 0.3209 (othocalase) 6.943942
37.127 3.04069 116.2 551.2 0.3842 calcite 21.01266
39.007 2.89945 36.5 178.4 0.4073 Dolomite 6.600362
39.935 2.83473 12.8 62.7 0.3423 halite 2.314647
41.811 2.71282 26.3 90.9 0.2773 Pyrite 4.755877
45.59 2.49855 21.3 73.9 0.2847 Quartz
47.109 2.42234 12 39.9 0.319 Aragonite
47.953 2.38216 9.4 31.4 0.3324 Pyrite
48.713 2.34723 11.1 37.1 0.3391 Gypsum
50.067 2.28768 21.2 87.6 0.3458 Gypsum
255
Core 10 sample 5

15.619 7.1242 10.9 54.8 0.4045 Gypsum 2.42924
26.275 4.25899 56.9 160.3 0.2474 Gypsum
29.017 3.86397 14.9 42 0.2515 Gypsum
30.379 3.6945 20.9 48.4 0.2556 dolomite
31.301 3.58838 4.3 10 0.2575 -
33.095 3.39885 37.8 87.6 0.2595 Aragonite 8.424337
33.624 3.34688 171.9 488.2 0.2633 Quartz 38.31068
37.241 3.03168 145.7 728.4 0.4444 calcite 32.47158
39.067 2.89514 50.4 307.8 0.439 dolomite 11.23245
40.108 2.82297 8.6 52.3 0.2873 halite 1.916648
41.902 2.7072 23.4 143.3 0.2114 Pyrite 5.215066
42.947 2.64438 32.8 29.2 0.1355 -
44.023 2.58283 8.6 7.6 0.2922 -
45.786 2.48843 30.2 162.7 0.4488 Gypsum
46.469 2.4538 25.6 138 0.4427 Gypsum
47.366 2.40993 12.3 66.2 0.4397 Aragonite
48.252 2.36826 13.2 85.6 0.4366 Aragonite
256
Core 10 sample 6

13.44 8.27245 92.6 1859.9 0.4128 Illite 9.780313
14.9 7.46573 332.9 1859.9 0.4128 Gypsum 35.16054
26.343 4.24818 61.3 370.2 0.4522 Gypsum
26.888 4.16359 25.8 155.7 0.3556 Geothite 2.724968
29.721 3.77448 162.9 355 0.259 Gypsum
33.276 3.38084 21.7 47.2 0.2603 Aragonite 2.291931
33.854 3.32476 137.1 389 0.2615 Quartz 14.48035
feldspar
34.873 3.23051 21.7 61.5 0.2837 (othocalase) 10.29785
35.477 3.17725 75.8 232.8 0.3059 feldspar (Albite )
36.89 3.05951 61.8 189.8 0.3559 -
37.485 3.0127 86.2 407.6 0.406 calcite 9.104351
39.496 2.86495 60.8 287.2 0.3541 dolomite 6.421631
40.376 2.80501 64.2 241.1 0.3023 halite 6.780735
42.424 2.67539 28 184 0.5458 Pyrite 2.95733
45.127 2.52279 12.4 81.6 0.5046 -
46 2.47746 19 116 0.4633 Gypsum
46.556 2.44948 13.5 82.1 0.4539 Aragonite
47.481 2.40446 7.3 44.5 0.4492 Aragonite
48.826 2.34213 11.4 69.6 0.4468 Aragonite
50.452 2.27132 21.2 115 0.4444 Pyrite
257
Core 10 sample 7

13.245 8.39388 166.1 2297.5 0.4949 Illite 15.1981
14.576 7.63084 322.2 2297.5 0.4949 Gypsum 29.4812
26.12 4.28388 112.2 566.2 0.3752 Gypsum
26.649 4.20024 45.8 231.3 0.3342 Gypsum
29.367 3.81896 336.1 1162.3 0.2931 Aragonite 30.75304
33.54 3.355 22 167.7 0.6167 Quartz 2.012993
35.586 3.16786 6.5 49.3 0.4847 Feldspar (Albite) 0.594748
36.7 3.07482 107.4 455.2 0.3527 Calcite 9.827066
39.285 2.87974 59.4 217.6 0.3023 dolomite 5.435081
40.054 2.82666 25.6 93.8 0.3381 halite 2.342392
42.227 2.68735 47.6 211 0.374 Pyrite 4.355385
43.628 2.60502 11.8 52.2 0.3747 -
44.817 2.53935 22 114 0.3754 -
45.416 2.50762 15 77.5 0.35 -
47.389 2.40883 18.8 78 0.3245 Feldspar (Albite)
51.667 2.22147 19.9 119.6 0.4425 Gypsum
55.233 2.08825 25.3 256 0.7151 calcite
Feldspar
58.084 1.99407 25.9 142.6 0.4116 (orthoclase)
61.214 1.90126 61.7 379.2 0.4244 -
65.95 1.77856 21.2 175.7 0.6341 -
258
Core 10 sample 8

13.133 8.46496 165 2297.5 0.4949 Illite 20.72604
14.576 7.63084 322.2 2297.5 0.4949 Gypsum 40.4723
23.558 4.74198 14.3 58.2 0.2891 -
26.12 4.28388 112.2 566.2 0.3752 Gypsum
26.649 4.20024 46.9 236.7 0.3342 Geothite 5.89122
29.367 3.81896 336.1 1162.3 0.2931 Gypsum
33.54 3.355 22 167.7 0.6167 Quartz 2.763472
36.7 3.07482 107.4 455.2 0.3527 Calcite 13.49077
39.285 2.87974 59.4 217.6 0.3023 dolomite 7.461374
40.054 2.82666 25.6 93.8 0.3381 halite 3.215676
42.227 2.68735 47.6 211 0.374 Pyrite 5.979148
43.74 2.5987 16 71.1 0.3747 Gypsum
44.817 2.53935 22 114 0.3754 -
45.751 2.49023 18.2 94.1 0.35 Gypsum
47.389 2.40883 18.8 78 0.3245 -
51.667 2.22147 19.9 119.6 0.4425 Gypsum
55.233 2.08825 25.3 256 0.7151 Gypsum
58.084 1.99407 25.9 142.6 0.4116 -
61.214 1.90126 61.7 379.2 0.4244 -
65.95 1.77856 21.2 175.7 0.6341 -
259
Core 10 sample 9

26.145 4.27986 17.5 42.6 0.2766 Geothite 4.995718
29.266 3.83178 16.2 107.1 0.5342 -
32.967 3.41169 73.3 290.5 0.3406 Aragonite 20.92492
33.547 3.35431 51.7 204.8 0.5615 Quartz 0.147588
feldspar
34.257 3.28678 49.4 195.6 0.672 (othocalase) 14.1022
37.573 3.00589 92.1 1041.5 0.7824 calcite 26.29175
38.963 2.90255 19.8 223.7 0.5718 Dolomite 5.652298
40.207 2.81635 8.2 92.3 0.4664 halite 2.340851
41.272 2.74669 11.6 131.7 0.4138 -
41.851 2.71036 38.3 170.1 0.3611 Pyrite 10.93349
45.747 2.49043 34.2 262.6 0.58 Quartz
47.133 2.4212 12.8 98.3 0.4744 Aragonite
48.033 2.37841 30.6 154.5 0.3688 Pyrite
48.82 2.3424 23.5 118.8 0.6386 Gypsum
50.152 2.28406 16.6 83.7 0.7734 Gypsum
50.67 2.26222 19 234.4 0.9083 -
52.65 2.18287 11.2 90.3 0.5666 calcite
260
Core 10 sample 10

26.334 4.24966 14.8 55.2 0.3062 Geothite 4.766506
29.5 3.8021 14.4 82.4 0.4775 -
30.065 3.73223 11.1 63.4 0.3829 -
33.127 3.39568 79.8 246.6 0.2882 Aragonite 25.70048
34.413 3.27241 47.9 148 0.4741 Quartz 15.42673
37.767 2.99101 113.4 1019.1 0.6599 calcite 36.52174
40.236 2.81435 11.1 99.7 0.5267 dolomite 3.574879
42.016 2.70022 43.5 205.5 0.3934 Pyrite 14.00966
45.933 2.48086 40 281.3 0.5578 Quartz
47.455 2.4057 17.9 125.7 0.5089 Aragonite
48.233 2.36914 32.2 198.7 0.46 Gypsum
48.931 2.33737 26.8 198.7 0.46 Aragonite
261
Core 11 sample 1

13.085 8.49562 27.5 771.1 0.2181 Illite 4.838142
14.479 7.68149 311.2 771.1 0.2181 gypsum 54.75018
26.025 4.29921 37.7 199.4 0.3953 gypsum
29.39 3.81604 72.3 157.3 0.2621 gypsum
32.854 3.42306 25.5 55.6 0.2432 aragonite
33.534 3.3556 116.9 227.8 0.2243 quartz 20.5665
36.545 3.0874 38.3 74.6 0.3605 gypsum
37.193 3.03546 39 239.7 0.4968 calcite 6.861365
39.088 2.89366 12.8 78.8 0.3953 dolomite 2.251935
40.017 2.82916 23.7 87.6 0.2938 halite 4.169599
42.168 2.69091 17.6 161.3 0.6133 pyrite 3.096411
45.767 2.48941 14.1 111.3 0.5667 aragonite
47.947 2.38244 12.8 101 0.4655 gypsum
48.733 2.34629 25 120 0.3643 aragonite
262
Core 11 sample 2

11.431 9.72024 33.2 496.1 0.9852 Illite 7.628676
13.025 8.53509 145 2166.7 0.7899 Illite
14.567 7.63558 159.5 1492.7 0.5946 gypsum 36.64982
25.992 4.3045 46 174.4 0.3146 gypsum
26.716 4.18996 26.8 101.5 0.3458 geothite
29.367 3.81897 171.5 923.7 0.377 gypsum
33.525 3.35643 59.6 173.8 0.2681 quartz 13.69485
36.686 3.07595 66.6 206.4 0.3036 calcite 15.30331
39.259 2.88158 25.9 105.7 0.3451 dolomite 5.951287
42.149 2.69208 37.4 141.3 0.3329 pyrite 8.59375
44.808 2.53982 18.1 50.7 0.2667 Quartz 4.159007
263
Core 11 sample 3

13.078 8.50026 258.4 2934.4 0.5637 Illite 33.25611
14.634 7.60093 322.3 2934.4 0.5637 gypsum 41.48005
15.765 7.05871 15.5 140.9 0.5067 gypsum 0
23.6 4.73375 13.5 74.6 0.4497 gypsum
26.093 4.28811 117.9 599.8 0.3863 gypsum
26.683 4.19496 49.6 252.1 0.3521 geothite
29.5 3.80206 357.3 1249.3 0.3179 gypsum
30.41 3.69092 30.9 107.9 0.2749 gypsum
31.19 3.60084 26.5 92.5 0.2534 -
33.553 3.35371 53 137.3 0.2319 quartz 6.821107
36.733 3.07214 77.7 241.6 0.2968 calcite 10
39.301 2.87863 25.7 147.7 0.456 dolomite 3.307593
40.115 2.8225 7.8 44.7 0.3746 halite 1.003861
42.189 2.68964 32.1 97.3 0.2933 pyrite 4.131274
43.668 2.60276 5.6 16.9 0.1467 gypsum
44.708 2.54522 8.9 0 0 calcite
50.081 2.28707 6.7 0 0 gypsum
51.641 2.22252 10 0 0 -
264
Core 11 sample 4

13.15 8.45396 160.8 85.2 0.3255 Illite 17.24212
14.521 7.65931 316.2 85.2 0.3255 gypsum 33.90521
15.978 6.96482 16.1 4.3 0.3255 -
23.699 4.71427 17.1 85.2 0.3255 -
26.135 4.28143 143.9 458.1 0.3115 Gypsum
26.692 4.19364 43.7 139.3 0.2908 Goethite 0
29.515 3.80019 337.2 1044.5 0.2702 gypsum
33.677 3.34179 115.6 334.5 0.242 Quartz 12.39545
35.434 3.18097 29.9 86.5 0.2725 feldspar (Albite) 3.20609
36.838 3.0637 184.6 724.3 0.303 calcite 3.20609
39.398 2.87178 54.8 439.1 0.5693 dolomite 5.876045
40.234 2.81454 20.3 162.8 0.4656 halite 2.17671
42.31 2.68233 50.4 241.7 0.3619 pyrite 5.404246
43.833 2.59343 8.6 41.2 0.3344 Gypsum
44.948 2.53235 21.2 91.6 0.3069 gypsum
50.264 2.27929 22 80.2 0.2841 gypsum
51.8 2.21615 24 84.9 0.3139 gypsum
265
Core 11 sample 5

13.046 8.5212 230.9 2673.3 0.5535 Illite 27.12004
14.516 7.66217 317.4 3675.5 0.3844 Gypsum 37.27977
15.741 7.06918 17.2 199 0.2998 -
23.594 4.73486 20.3 38 0.2152 -
26.043 4.29618 200.3 581.8 0.2689 gypsum
26.603 4.20735 63.1 183.3 0.2939 Goethite
29.434 3.81042 347.1 1220.3 0.319 gypsum 0
33.149 3.39345 17.4 39.1 0.2182 Quartz 2.043693
36.692 3.0755 159.7 633.1 0.3195 calcite 2.043693
39.223 2.88408 53.2 230.7 0.3593 Dolomite 6.248532
40.569 2.79223 11.8 51.3 0.3515 gypsum
42.126 2.69348 72.8 320.4 0.3437 Pyrite 8.550623
43.591 2.60714 7.6 33.3 0.3206 gypsum
44.75 2.54296 27.4 95.5 0.2975 gypsum
45.388 2.50907 12.9 45.1 0.1488 -
46.368 2.45887 11.8 0 0 gypsum
266
Core 11 sample 6

14.568 7.63516 21.9 69.2 0.2894 gypsum 5.968929
26.273 4.25925 14 96 0.5222 gypsum 0
29.873 3.75563 13.9 48.4 0.2814 gypsum
33.018 3.40653 102.9 399.2 0.3424 aragonite 28.04579
33.566 3.35251 66.6 258.6 0.5313 quartz 18.15209
34.272 3.2854 59.2 229.8 0.6258 orthoclase (feldspar) 16.13519
37.54 3.00842 38.8 150.7 0.4192 calcite 10.57509
39.218 2.88444 8.4 32.7 0.3159 dolomite 2.289452
40.056 2.82654 17.1 39.1 0.2126 halite 0.770384
41.338 2.74252 15.2 34.8 0.2843 -
41.888 2.70807 52 216.7 0.356 pyrite 192.4512
43.192 2.63004 6.5 27 0.5535 -
43.94 2.58744 6.5 55.9 0.7509 -
45.752 2.49017 36.8 212 0.434 gypsum
47.079 2.42382 18.5 106.2 0.4225 pyrite
48.052 2.37753 39.6 206.7 0.411 pyrite
48.757 2.34524 36.2 189 0.5132 gypsum
50.7 2.26095 6.8 57.9 0.6153 -
52.433 2.19125 12.6 112.6 0.568 gypsum
267
Core 11 sample 7

11.154 9.96052 13.3 34.8 0.281 illite 3.207911
13.156 8.44991 163.1 428.7 0.3976 Illite
14.64 7.59788 322.1 2402.1 0.5142 gypsum 77.68934
23.684 4.71709 9.7 72.2 0.4608 -
26.081 4.29008 103.9 535.1 0.4074 gypsum
26.654 4.19956 35.3 181.6 0.3319 Geothite 0
29.479 3.8047 337.3 966.5 0.2563 gypsum
33.595 3.34968 83.5 314.1 0.2918 quartz 20.13989
35.472 3.1777 11.8 44.4 0.298 feldspar (Albite) 28.77472
36.786 3.06789 119.3 454.8 0.3041 -
38.081 2.96722 7.5 28.8 0.4539 calcite 1.808973
39.318 2.87737 48.7 376.4 0.6036 dolomite 11.74626
40.061 2.82618 25.7 198.3 0.4921 halite 6.198746
42.256 2.68556 44.8 226.1 0.3806 pyrite 10.8056
43.66 2.60322 11.8 59.5 0.3713 -
44.83 2.53867 19.3 97.2 0.3621 -
45.675 2.49415 24.1 101.4 0.3436 gypsum
50.154 2.28397 18.4 68.3 0.3392 feldspar (Albite)
51.768 2.21742 22.7 120.6 0.4082 -
54.089 2.12901 16.2 94.8 0.5283 -
268
Core 11 sample 8

13.194 8.42603 75.4 1795.1 0.3764 Illite 8.070213
14.51 7.66524 323.2 7690.2 0.38 gypsum 34.59274
23.724 4.70933 8.3 198.5 0.3818 -
26.242 4.26418 71.4 338.3 0.3836 gypsum 0
27.673 4.04778 5.2 24.8 0.3181 -
29.478 3.80485 136.8 396.4 0.2526 gypsum
30.387 3.69357 24.9 72 0.2516 -
33.102 3.39812 33.1 95.9 0.2511 aragonite 3.542759
33.619 3.34734 327.7 925.7 0.2506 quartz 35.07439
35.329 3.19008 35.6 200.3 0.3887 feldspar (Albite)
36.804 3.06644 39.3 221.4 0.4389 feldspar (Albite) 4.206358
37.246 3.03128 57.9 350.9 0.489 calcite 6.197153
39.151 2.88919 29.1 296.5 0.6689 dolomite 3.114631
40.095 2.8239 25.9 264.2 0.6163 halite 2.772129
41.967 2.70324 22.7 202.1 0.5636 pyrite 2.429626
45.767 2.48941 19.4 145.8 0.53 feldspar (Albite)
48.1 2.37531 14.5 54.8 0.2686 feldspar (Albite)
269
Core 11 sample 9

26.162 4.27704 57.1 155.2 0.2525 - 0
29 3.8662 17 52 0.2888 -
30.362 3.69663 27.2 96 0.2949 feldspar
32.87 3.42147 45.4 160.6 0.2799 aragonite 7.706671
33.567 3.35241 264.5 753.7 0.265 quartz 44.899
34.575 3.25751 65.3 186.2 0.415 feldspare (orthoclase) 11.08471
35.238 3.1981 35.9 102.2 0.49 feldspar (albite) 6.094042
37.21 3.03418 88.1 658.1 0.5651 calcite 14.95502
39.043 2.89686 39.8 206.7 0.4117 dolomite 6.756069
40.069 2.82562 14.4 74.8 0.3346 halite 2.444407
41.872 2.70909 35.7 101.7 0.2575 pyrite 6.060092
45.748 2.49039 27 132 0.4045 aragonite
47.269 2.41463 10.4 51 0.379 aragonite
47.932 2.38316 12.8 62.7 0.3534 feldspar (Albite)
48.879 2.33973 13.6 66.6 0.3279 feldspar (Albite)
50.11 2.28585 37.4 120 0.3023 feldspar (Albite)
52.333 2.19514 12 48 0.3222 feldspar (Albite)
54.067 2.12982 12 38.7 0.3 aragonite
270
Core 11 sample 10

14.569 7.63443 15.3 40.3 0.2568 gypsum 2.32311
15.407 7.22146 11.7 30.8 0.2559 -
17.058 6.52712 25.3 66.2 0.2549 - 0
22.473 4.96771 8 53.1 0.4604 -
26.16 4.27743 84.7 249.3 0.2594 gypsum
29.085 3.85519 13.1 38.5 0.2549 -
30.32 3.7016 23.8 49.9 0.2505 -
31.429 3.57404 9.7 20.3 0.2517 -
32.895 3.41893 35.1 73.5 0.2522 Aragonite 5.329487
33.549 3.35414 218.4 605 0.2528 quartz 33.16125
35.24 3.19796 37.1 102.8 0.3434 feldspar , Albite 5.633161
37.177 3.03676 103.7 497.7 0.3736 calcite 15.74552
40.027 2.82849 62.5 312.9 0.3362 halite 9.489827
41.862 2.7097 29 109.6 0.2797 pyrite 4.40328
45.693 2.49319 23.4 88.3 0.2806 gypsum
48.084 2.37607 13.9 59.6 0.3432 pyrite
48.624 2.35124 12.4 53.3 0.3252 gypsum
50.167 2.2834 38.1 147.5 0.3071 calcite
52.271 2.19758 20.2 85.8 0.4221 gypsum
55.1 2.09292 13.4 120 0.6429 calcite
271
Core 11 sample 11

6.57 16.89327 17.1 96 0.4417 Montmorillonite 2.960014
15.768 7.05719 10.3 57.5 0.5417 gypsum 1.782932
23.664 4.72114 14 22.6 0.1632 -
25.122 4.45102 11.9 19.2 0.205 - 0
26.161 4.27723 85.9 172.9 0.2467 gypsum
29.054 3.85916 14.4 28.9 0.2544 calcite
30.316 3.70204 23.5 68.1 0.2621 -
32.986 3.40978 22 63.8 0.2519 Aragonite 3.808205
33.542 3.35481 265.6 727.6 0.2417 quartz 45.97542
35.17 3.2041 24.5 67.1 0.3417 feldspar (Albite) 4.240956
37.167 3.03756 98.2 482.6 0.4418 calcite 4.240956
39.01 2.89921 62.6 248.4 0.3787 dolomite 10.83607
39.975 2.83198 28.7 114 0.4163 halite 10.83607
41.835 2.71137 25.2 135.5 0.4538 pyrite 4.362126
45.71 2.49235 28.4 146.6 0.416 gypsum
48.101 2.37529 16.1 83 0.4093 pyrite
48.887 2.33937 16.1 83 0.4026 gypsum
50.11 2.28585 31.2 149.1 0.3892 calcite
52.25 2.19839 16.8 69.8 0.3453 gypsum
272
Core 11 sample 12

26.225 4.26691 74.8 157.4 0.259 -
29.169 3.84427 9.1 19.2 0.2647 calcite 0
30.4 3.69211 29.2 84.8 0.2704 -
31.241 3.5951 9.1 26.5 0.2668 -
32.981 3.41029 23.2 67.4 0.2633 Aragonite 3.754653
33.611 3.34812 318.1 906.5 0.2561 Quartz 51.48082
35.301 3.19261 11.2 31.8 0.36 feldspar (Albite ) 1.812591
37.233 3.03231 109.1 544.6 0.3946 calcite 17.65658
39.101 2.89275 66.8 450 0.4976 Dolomite 10.81081
40.106 2.8231 23.2 156.5 0.4179 halite 3.754653
41.9 2.70737 23.9 99.4 0.3382 pyrite 3.86794
44.166 2.57484 6.1 25.5 0.3266 -
45.741 2.49074 19.2 79.9 0.315 calcite
46.35 2.45977 28.8 101 0.2918 -
47.398 2.40842 8.1 28.5 0.3062 -
48.061 2.37713 7.1 25 0.3134 pyrite
48.889 2.33926 5.1 17.9 0.317 gypsum
50.248 2.27995 30.9 137.8 0.3206 gypsum
273
Core 12 sample 1

12.975 8.50772 40.1 1397 0.3309 Illite 6.78625825
14.434 7.67568 326.8 1397 0.3309 Gypsum 55.30546624
25.953 4.31094 63.8 328.6 0.412 Gypsum
29.344 3.82189 80.3 242.9 0.2732 gypsum
32.85 3.42345 34.9 105.7 0.2686 -
33.472 3.33165 71.8 207.9 0.264 Quartz 12.15095617
34.307 3.28221 17.5 50.7 0.5412 feldspar 2.961584024
35.42 3.18217 9.3 26.9 0.6799 feldspar( Albite ) 1.573870367
36.678 3.07663 66 727.3 0.8185 Gypsum
37.134 3.03016 62.6 689.7 0.6471 Calcite 10.59400914
39.221 2.88423 27 159.7 0.4758 dolomite 4.569301066
39.789 2.84467 18.5 109.5 0.5747 dolomite
42.085 2.69597 35.8 339.1 0.6736 pyrite 6.058554747
274
Core 12 sample 2

13.249 8.39123 41.4 1689.8 0.3565 Illite 6.461682535
14.633 7.601 331.7 1689.8 0.3565 Gypsum 51.77149992
26.156 4.278 75.1 304 0.3578 Gypsum
29.53 3.79827 91.1 270.9 0.2799 Gypsum
33.104 3.39795 75 359.2 0.3984 Aragonite 11.70594662
33.645 3.3448 50.7 242.9 0.3812 Quartz 7.913219916
34.48 3.26622 41.4 198.4 0.3726 feldspar 0.509789293
36.826 3.06465 66 264.3 0.364 Gypsum
37.354 3.02288 35.2 140.9 0.3218 Calcite 5.493990947
39.414 2.87071 26.9 79.3 0.2796 dolomite 4.198532855
41.993 2.70163 38.4 294.6 0.6176 Pyrite 2.107070392
43.751 2.59808 13.5 103.6 0.5926 Quartz
45.866 2.48429 33.3 262.5 0.5675 Aragonite
48.108 2.37493 20.7 163.6 0.5059 Aragonite
48.862 2.3405 26.4 140.4 0.4444 Aragonite
51.724 2.21918 11.4 60.8 0.4041 Gypsum
52.451 2.19058 13.5 75.2 0.3638 Gypsum
54.733 2.10584 19.9 113.8 0.4712 Aragonite
275
Core 12 sample 3

13.22 8.40944 32.3 1019.3 0.28 Illite 4.594594595
14.598 7.61946 326.4 1019.3 0.28 Gypsum 46.42958748
23.634 4.72692 13.1 53.5 0.3608 -
26.146 4.27965 62.6 248.4 0.3395 Gypsum
29.513 3.8004 55 205.6 0.2971 Gypsum
33.045 3.40387 78 291.8 0.2839 Aragonite 11.09530583
33.699 3.33965 117.7 336.1 0.2707 Quartz 16.74253201
34.389 3.27462 44.8 127.8 0.2983 felspar (orthoclase) 6.372688478
36.829 3.06445 58 234 0.3259 Gypsum
37.329 3.02484 27.1 109.3 0.3217 Calcite 3.854907539
39.394 2.8721 29.8 92.1 0.3175 dolomite 4.238975818
41.958 2.70379 46.9 311.4 0.5299 pyrite 6.67140825
42.369 2.67874 33.3 221.4 0.5348 Gypsum
45.767 2.48941 30 194 0.5397 Quartz ,Aragonite
48.142 2.37338 29.8 167.6 0.4552 Aragonite
48.837 2.34162 26.1 0 0 anhydrite
276
Core 12 sample 4

12.973 8.56908 16.3 37.6 0.273 Illite 2.788708298
15.662 7.14458 10.9 37.6 0.273 Gypsum 1.864841745
26.213 4.26888 68.2 182 0.2559 Gypsum
27.72 4.04102 39 76.1 0.2294 -
30.387 3.69362 36.7 113.5 0.2593 dolomite
31.379 3.57967 12 37.1 0.2708 feldspar
32.976 3.41079 26 80.5 0.2765 Aragonite
33.603 3.34886 339.4 1126.7 0.2823 Quartz 58.0667237
35.329 3.19014 12 39.7 0.281 feldspar (Albite)
37.212 3.03397 83.9 244.8 0.2806 calcite 14.35414885
39.086 2.89381 59.8 297.9 0.3958 dolomite 10.23096664
40.119 2.82222 17.4 86.5 0.3375 halite 2.976903336
41.88 2.70858 22.1 71.7 0.2791 pyrite 3.78100941
45.7 2.49284 20 104 0.4088 Quartz
47.179 2.41894 9.8 51 0.296 Aragonite
48.026 2.37876 12.7 20 0.1832 pyrite
50.157 2.28382 31.4 98.6 0.2687 Quartz
277
Core 12 sample 5

13.223 8.40755 77.2 1993 0.4373 Illite 10.49055578
14.7 7.56674 348.8 1993 0.4373 gypsum 47.39774426
23.675 4.71894 11.9 30 0.291 -
26.158 4.27775 87.4 358.4 0.3694 gypsum
26.746 4.18531 19.4 79.4 0.3169 Geothite 2.636227748
29.534 3.79782 163.3 473.3 0.2645 gypsum
33.08 3.40036 51.5 149.2 0.2733 anhydrite
33.681 3.34138 56.7 160.1 0.2821 Quartz 7.704851203
35.476 3.17732 8.7 24.4 0.3336 feldspar (Albite)
36.869 3.06122 102.4 401.8 0.3507 calcite 13.91493409
37.445 3.01581 47.2 185.3 0.3975 Calcite
40.269 2.81216 15.1 87.7 0.5333 halite 2.051909227
42.262 2.68521 39 306.7 0.6223 pyrite 5.299633102
43.778 2.59654 5.4 42.8 0.5143 gypsum
45.867 2.48427 27 140 0.4063 anhydrite
47.373 2.40962 6.5 33.8 0.3732 Gypsum
48.138 2.37354 20 84 0.34 pyrite
48.914 2.33817 10.8 45.3 0.3467 gypsum
51.8 2.21615 14 60 0.3533 gypsum
278
Core 12 sample 6

14.572 7.63263 49.6 96.1 0.2098 Gypsum 9.53479431
26.211 4.26917 40.2 113.7 0.257 gypsum 0
28.471 3.9365 5.3 15.1 0.3687 -
29.216 3.83826 11.2 31.7 0.4245 gypsum
29.766 3.76882 20 127.1 0.4804 Gypsum
30.374 3.69514 16 101.3 0.3646 dolomite
33.022 3.40615 89.2 566.3 0.3068 Aragonite 17.14725106
33.582 3.35088 168.8 361.8 0.2489 Quartz 32.44905805
35.173 3.20382 4.8 10.3 0.4819 feldspar (Albite)
37.151 3.03878 34.8 243.1 0.5596 calcite 6.689734717
39.062 2.89553 37.7 263.6 0.4389 dolomite 7.247212611
40.086 2.82448 40 157.2 0.3181 halite 7.247212611
41.9 2.70735 53.9 177.3 0.3157 pyrite 10.36139946
43.613 2.60592 5.9 19.4 0.3504 -
45.796 2.48788 37 160 0.3852 gypsum
46.26 2.46428 16.5 71.3 0.3651 Aragonite
47.336 2.4114 18.6 80.5 0.3451 Aragonite
48.033 2.37841 37 145.3 0.3049 pyrite
48.825 2.34215 25 0 0 gypsum
279
Core 12 sample 7

26.233 4.26562 36.5 108 0.2689 gypsum 0
30.393 3.69288 37 104.8 0.2492 dolomite
33.014 3.40694 57.4 162.8 0.2472 Aragonite
33.6 3.34922 346.3 1019.9 0.2453 Quartz 62.75824574
35.293 3.19329 11.1 32.7 0.6462 feldspar (Albite) 2.011598405
37.269 3.02949 68.5 759.2 0.7798 calcite 12.41391809
39.006 2.89948 27.7 306.7 0.5521 dolomite 5.019934759
40.188 2.8176 15.5 172.2 0.4382 halite 2.808988764
41.93 2.70551 55 207.8 0.3243 pyrite 9.967379485
45.793 2.48803 34.7 257.6 0.5446 gypsum
47.278 2.41419 15.5 115.2 0.4879 Aragonite
48.05 2.37764 24.7 136.1 0.4313 pyrite
48.797 2.34341 21 115.8 0.2156 Aragonite
50.316 2.27706 15.5 0 0 Gypsum
280
Core 12 sample 8

23.767 4.70096 15.4 30.7 0.189 -
26.236 4.26528 95.3 205.3 0.2405 Gypsum 0
29.135 3.84865 10.5 22.6 0.2464 -
30.4 3.69209 78.9 219.2 0.2523 dolomite
32.892 3.41921 36.5 101.4 0.2985 Aragonite 5.916680175
33.567 3.35241 347 1471.6 0.3447 Quartz 56.24898687
34.689 3.24714 38.5 163.5 0.3662 feldspar(orthoclase) 6.240881828
35.261 3.19612 31.3 132.6 0.377 feldspar (Albite) 5.073755876
37.242 3.0316 94.5 424.6 0.3878 calcite 15.31852812
39.11 2.89208 21.7 128.1 0.4701 dolomite 3.51758794
40.079 2.82494 17.8 104.7 0.3671 halite 2.885394716
41.913 2.70657 29.6 89.4 0.2641 pyrite 4.798184471
45.633 2.49631 24 72.5 0.3654 Aragonite
46.333 2.46061 28 142.3 0.4667 Aragonite
48.852 2.34092 16.2 126.7 0.5917 gypsum
281
Core 12 sample 9

26.273 4.25936 124.3 335.1 0.2414 gypsum 0
29.103 3.85288 9 24.2 0.2596 -
30.433 3.68813 32.2 103.4 0.2778 dolomite
31.328 3.58537 7 22.5 0.2766 -
33.089 3.39942 33.7 108.2 0.2753 Aragonite
33.64 3.34533 318.5 947 0.2728 Quartz 48.52224254
34.758 3.24088 119.9 356.4 0.3201 feldspar(orthoclase) 18.26630104
35.314 3.19142 24.8 73.8 0.3438 feldspar 3.778184034
37.271 3.02933 122.4 615.8 0.3674 calcite 18.64716636
39.034 2.89748 28.3 196.2 0.4591 dolomite 4.311395491
40.228 2.81493 13 89.6 0.4009 halite 1.980499695
41.954 2.70403 29.5 130.4 0.3427 pyrite 4.494210847
45.698 2.49295 23.8 105.5 0.3124 Aragonite
46.399 2.45731 26.4 105.7 0.2821 dolomite
47.367 2.40992 10 40 0.3052 -
48.108 2.37493 11 43.9 0.3167 pyrite
48.85 2.34103 12 47.9 0.3224 gypsum
50.267 2.27914 34.9 157.9 0.3282 pyrite
51.261 2.23788 11 49.6 0.3824 pyrite
52.373 2.19359 10 45.2 0.4094 gypsum
54.166 2.1262 27.2 181.4 0.4365 Aragonite
282
Core 12 sample 10

23.8 4.69453 13.1 21.7 0.2221 -
26.252 4.26269 111.7 252.5 0.2582 gypsum 0
30.426 3.689 45.3 137.8 0.2576 dolomite
33.029 3.40546 30.9 94 0.2794 Aragonite 4.556850022
33.633 3.34596 359.2 1390.3 0.3011 Quartz 52.97153812
35.333 3.18975 91 369.5 0.3464 feldspar (Albite) 13.41984958
37.259 3.03033 68.5 360.7 0.3821 calcite 10.1017549
39.034 2.89751 37.2 238.1 0.471 dolomite 5.485916531
40.066 2.82585 14.4 92 0.4066 halite 2.123580593
41.951 2.70423 22.8 104.2 0.3422 pyrite 3.362335939
45.749 2.49029 16.6 75.9 0.308 Aragonite 3.362335939
46.381 2.45822 48.3 151.6 0.2738 Aragonite
47.193 2.41828 8.9 27.9 0.2837 gypsum
48.005 2.37974 10 31.3 0.2887 gypsum
50.176 2.283 34.8 134.2 0.2937 Aragonite
51.253 2.23819 6.7 25.8 0.2965 pyrite
54.109 2.12826 28.4 94.5 0.2993 Aragonite
283
Core 12 sample 11

13.099 8.48713 92.9 1562.9 0.3663 Illite 13.18852924
14.504 7.66869 324.1 1562.9 0.3663 Gypsum 46.01078932
25.992 4.26456 39.4 147.3 0.3496 gypsum
29.378 3.81753 78.9 170.4 0.2584 gypsum
32.814 3.42716 47.5 102.6 0.2562 aragonite 11.20102215
33.548 3.34424 89.7 258 0.2539 Quartz 12.73424191
36.592 3.08356 34.1 98.1 0.4061 gypsum
37.198 3.03507 62.3 307.4 0.4569 calcite 4.840999432
39.25 2.88219 20.7 224.3 0.78 dolomite 2.93867121
39.878 2.83859 12.5 135.1 0.7039 Halite 1.774559909
41.875 2.70886 29.9 251.9 0.6278 pyrite 4.244747303
45.687 2.49353 28.5 121.3 0.3778 gypsum
47.107 2.42244 14.5 61.9 0.3944 Aragonite
48.075 2.37647 20.1 94 0.4111 Aragonite
48.75 2.34554 15.5 0 0 Aragonite
284
Core 12 sample 12

13.115 8.47674 56.2 1615 0.376 Illite 8.27565896
14.567 7.63559 347.8 1615 0.376 gypsum 51.21484317
24.922 4.48631 7.6 35.5 0.3659 -
26.025 4.29922 68.6 280.9 0.3558 gypsum
29.42 3.8122 120.6 337.9 0.2577 gypsum
32.937 3.41472 58.4 163.6 0.2587 aragonite 8.59961714
33.587 3.35048 71.4 200.9 0.2597 Quartz 10.51391548
34.229 3.2894 32.5 91.5 0.2879 feldspar (orthoclase 4.78574584
36.752 3.07062 82.9 254.8 0.3161 gypsum
37.16 3.03812 45.4 139.7 0.3377 calcite 6.685318804
39.291 2.87933 33.5 142.1 0.3592 dolomite 4.932999558
41.913 2.70654 33.9 332.4 0.6817 pyrite 4.991901046
45.767 2.48941 30.4 177.6 0.4676 gypsum
47.243 2.41587 8.7 51 0.4096 aragonite
48.024 2.37886 22.9 100.9 0.3517 aragonite
48.794 2.34355 19.5 0 0 Aragonite
51.724 2.21917 8.7 0 0 pyrite
285
Core 12 sample 13

13.078 8.50054 7.4 167 0.2466 Illite 0.980781975
14.516 7.66224 78.7 167 0.2466 gypsum 10.43074884
15.352 7.24701 10.8 22.9 0.2456 -
24.976 4.47667 9.4 20.1 0.2451 -
26.196 4.27166 48.8 99.4 0.2446 gypsum
29.088 3.85475 14.1 28.8 0.2321 -
29.438 3.80992 14.1 28.8 0.2258 -
30.316 3.70203 17.8 36 0.2195 -
32.15 3.49596 14.8 30 0.2366 anhydrite 1.96156395
32.938 3.41462 28.2 57.2 0.2452 Aragonite 3.737574553
33.543 3.35475 211.7 597.2 0.2537 quartz 28.05831677
35.268 3.19543 168.1 341.5 0.2244 feldspar (Albite) 22.2796554
37.197 3.03514 124 577.2 0.344 calcite 16.43472498
38.99 2.90066 53.6 382.3 0.5219 dolomite 7.104042412
39.937 2.83461 20.2 144.1 0.4376 halite 2.677269715
41.249 2.74817 7.4 53.1 0.3954
41.846 2.71067 27.6 111.9 0.3533 pyrite 3.65805169
45.767 2.48941 26.5 139.6 0.4239 Aragonite
46.411 2.45673 16.2 85 0.3322
47.286 2.41381 7.4 39.1 0.2864 Aragonite
47.995 2.38019 15.9 34.1 0.2406 Aragonite
48.773 2.3445 8.8 18.8 0.2913 Aragonite
50.2 2.28199 29.9 120 0.342 feldspar
51.135 2.24299 12.1 0 0 pyrite
52.272 2.19751 8.8 0 0 dolomite
286
Core 12 sample 14

15.202 7.31808 10.6 126.1 0.9042 gypsum 2.703391992
17.34 6.42162 8.1 24.9 0.2794 -
19.545 5.70319 6.7 22.4 0.3362 -
22.4 4.9837 6.4 21.8 0.2377 -
25.083 4.45783 5 17 0.2315 -
26.261 4.26125 35 70.6 0.2254 gypsum 8.926294313
29.193 3.84117 21.9 111.1 0.4063 -
33.064 3.4019 49.7 252 0.3292 Aragonite
33.67 3.34243 120.6 339.5 0.2521 quartz 30.75745983
37.304 3.02679 174.6 1102 0.5358 calcite 44.52945677
39.271 2.88068 14.2 89.8 0.4252 dolomite 3.621525121
40.158 2.81961 10.9 69.1 0.3698 Halite 2.779903086
41.968 2.70318 28.4 91.2 0.3145 pyrite 7.243050242
45.81 2.48719 44.6 214 0.4 anhydrite ,gypsum
48.1 2.37532 19.7 91.1 0.3626 pyrite
48.848 2.3411 15.9 73.4 0.4224 feldspar
50.233 2.28058 34.9 191.9 0.4822 -
52.5 2.18866 9.5 85.6 0.6277 gypsum
287
Core 12 sample 15

29.25 3.83387 12.1 58.5 0.4441 - 0
32.967 3.41169 68.3 261.1 0.3236 Aragonite 13.36333399
33.533 3.35572 19.3 73.6 0.3487 Quartz 3.776169047
37.557 3.0371 289.1 897.2 0.7315 calcite 56.56427314
39.934 2.83477 9 37.5 0.334 dolomite 1.760907846
41.844 2.71082 39.9 160.2 0.3362 pyrite 7.80669145
45.7 2.49285 34.4 185.4 0.464 dolomite 6.7305811
47.203 2.41778 10.3 55.6 0.4143 anhydrite, gypsum 2.015261201
47.953 2.38214 23.8 107.5 0.3647 anhydrite
48.85 2.34101 24 215.3 0.5968 pyrite
50.734 2.25954 15.7 117.5 0.5868 Quartz
52.533 2.18736 10.3 90.5 0.6469 Aragonite
54.578 2.11138 19.8 97.1 0.3789 Aragonite
55.644 2.07405 19.8 96.5 0.4105 gypsum
56.638 2.0406 7.5 96.5 0.4105 dolomite
288
Core 12 sample 16

29.46 3.8072 12.1 165.4 0.9856 - 0
33.038 3.40448 79.2 321.7 0.334 anhydrite 13.67454068
33.609 3.34832 52.1 211.7 0.4703 Quartz 13.67454068
37.652 3.01981 106.8 815.4 0.6066 calcite 28.03149606
39.21 2.88503 6.8 51.9 0.4611 dolomite 1.784776903
40.113 2.82264 11.9 90.7 0.3883 halite 3.12335958
41.916 2.70639 44.9 171.6 0.3155 magnesite, pyrite 11.7847769
45.785 2.48844 39.1 216.8 0.4512 Gypsum ,anhydrite
47.34 2.41119 14.2 78.9 0.2768 gypsum
48.063 2.37704 30.5 168.8 0.1896 pyrite 8.005249344
48.966 2.33582 25.1 138.9 0.146 anhydrite
50.773 2.25792 16.9 93.9 0.1242 -
52.309 2.1961 11.9 65.8 0.1133 calcite

289

290
Appendix C: Magnetic susceptibility

Core 1
Depth Vol. Susc.Meas. in SI
Depth Vol. Susc.Meas. in SI 103 22.9492
0 35.4155 106 26.297
3 11.3483 109 24.3946
6 23.641 112 23.0851
9 20.1087 115 21.1587
12 21.6678 116 19.8831
15 24.4225 119 16.6158
18 31.8463 122 -0.2544
21 28.7108 125 6.4037
24 39.7948 128 2.5294
27 24.6836 131 -1.012
30 22.1004 134 -2.3887
33 22.1494 137 4.5362
36 14.9985 140 20.0711
39 13.6771 143 14.5469
42 15.7388 146 12.2113
45 19.0997 149 11.2123
48 7.8488 152 11.3882
51 6.3095 155 4.3788
54 6.9722 158 20.4468
57 14.2959 161 15.972
60 12.3582 164 17.5315
63 10.4322 167 28.3179
66 11.1242 170 12.7604
69 10.6708 173 -1.9501
72 7.3906 176 0.2273
75 14.8381 179 2.0637
78 15.666 182 -0.154
79 19.9129 185 2.0596
82 15.2814 188 0.917
85 21.938 191 2.4237
88 17.9912 194 2.6311
91 33.2277 197 6.2455
94 34.6385 200 6.3223
97 36.7415 203 11.9958
100 23.6056
291
Core 2

0 92.2302
3 67.1963
6 67.0557
9 55.7491
12 50.0336
15 35.099
18 15.9848
21 20.3065
24 16.6071
27 11.0456
30 8.048
33 -10.0757
36 -14.9402
39 -23.1475
42 -29.6635
45 -30.489
48 -37.904
51 -39.3286
54 -45.4036
57 -45.1256
60 -52.6906
63 -53.0035
66 -60.471
69 -62.4826
72 -69.5653
75 -70.2672
78 -72.6202
81 -77.4703
84 -79.106
87 -81.4544
90 -84.6462
292
Core 3
Depth Vol. Susc.Meas. in SI Depth Vol. Susc.Meas. in SI

0 85.9857 87 -85.9368
3 75.5464 90 -12.1363
6 36.3631 93 46.7013
9 23.2384 96 28.3342
12 22.6146 99 7.4624
15 30.1171 102 -2.211
18 18.5069 105 -3.4
21 18.2813 108 -16.0372
24 14.1284 111 -24.7054
27 -17.5925 114 -36.0761
30 -3.3278 117 -43.5013
33 -15.0232 120 -48.5289
36 -25.7192 123 -56.7459
39 -35.4227 126 -62.4998
42 -34.3966 129 -68.9174
45 -40.3256 132 -75.5347
48 -42.7304 135 -70.1256
51 -51.5343 138 -75.5899
54 -49.1112
57 -59.0917
60 -56.8445
63 -82.4599
66 -90.0676
69 -83.5387
72 -87.3392
75 -83.7164
78 -88.5352
81 -88.9396
84 -85.1567
293
Core 4

0 -2.2561 87 -78.8795
3 79.7528 90 -80.8901
6 60.717 93 -82.6987
9 44.5113 96 -5.342
12 24.2831 99 5.8328
15 13.1494 102 5.6805
18 9.2257 105 0.1617
21 9.3364 108 -6.6066
24 4.6543 111 -9.7014
27 -6.5979 114 -15.9105
30 -5.575 117 -20.7532
33 -16.6638 120 -25.7659
36 -22.7062 123 -28.73
39 -25.516 126 -31.6142
42 -28.661 129 -34.4045
45 -33.7841 132 -38.645
48 -36.9286 135 -44.1456
51 -44.6097
54 -44.1871
57 -51.9217
60 -55.3367
63 -55.4225
66 -60.2962
69 -63.9697
72 -67.4114
75 -69.4325
78 -72.2006
81 -75.8761
84 -75.5347
294
Core 5

0 -3.3961
3 62.2456
6 42.7024
9 24.7743
12 25.9736
15 12.3827
18 2.3664
21 14.6625
24 0.2578
27 -20.2119
30 -29.2988
33 -26.236
36 -37.5376
39 -42.4224
42 -48.336
45 -52.1048
48 -56.6488
51 -58.8643
54 -62.2233
57 -65.5494
60 -72.5494
63 -75.5494
66 -78.5494
69 -79.5494
72 -82.5494
295
Core 6

0 -1.4697 87 68.8786
3 88.8901 90 52.5527
6 42.5665 93 46.816
9 31.5113 96 35.3
12 23.7315 99 38.9507
15 12.5651 102 21.7902
18 5.1015 105 21.0017
21 1.2129 108 15.2076
24 -5.055 111 0.7905
27 -9.1456 114 -3.5678
30 -16.3604 117 -6.6612
33 -18.0722 120 -28.7369
36 -22.5184 123 -35.0991
39 -29.6594 126 -40.1178
42 -33.3271 129 -42.5006
45 -35.2683 132 -46.2134
48 -40.8762 135 -47.6274
51 -42.6926 138 -51.9132
54 -44.8941 141 -53.9644
57 -48.723 144 -56.3652
60 -54.1562 147 -56.3659
63 -57.9524 150 -60.7989
66 -60.498
69 -60.5087
72 -65.0771
75 -7.80E-07
78 89.4348
81 80.3898
84 79.8988
296
Core 7

0 -13.9242 87 7.633
3 30.0915 90 -25.0462
6 -9.5663 93 -18.3156
9 -50.0234 96 -15.5569
12 -43.0783 99 -35.7075
15 -37.411 102 -63.9648
18 3.2867 105 -77.2899
21 -3.6468 108 -85.2653
24 -22.1259 111 -85.2345
27 -14.028 114 -91.2563
30 -18.2489 117 -93.1243
33 -17.4961 120 -99.3532
36 -18.7869 123 -102.3418
39 -2.3085 126 -105.6144
42 -1.0119 129 -108.0053
45 -4.3411 132 -112.6707
48 9.4708 135 -115.9342
51 3.6257
54 -3.8509
57 -11.3163
60 -9.5668
63 -23.02
66 -28.4199
69 -30.5984
72 -34.3658
75 -34.3689
78 -2.8301
81 19.4428
84 23.4487
297
Core 8

0 38.9722 86 -5.7323
3 -14.9331 89 -4.903
6 -9.6561 92 -10.0098
9 -3.7305 95 -17.1532
12 -13.0035 98 -15.0206
15 8.8196 101 -14.9176
18 20.7144 104 -13.4481
21 17.3769 107 -17.3377
24 21.3316 110 -27.7652
27 17.9929 113 -22.0026
30 10.7373 116 -33.2255
33 5.375 119 -38.6698
36 4.7096 122 -41.8553
39 2.0758 125 -41.6451
42 8.6772 128 -44.0148
45 13.2532 131 -44.6451
48 9.2902 134 -47.3658
51 -3.3146 137 -48.3659
53 -1.5666 140 -52.4569
56 39.3185
59 46.0818
62 31.7455
65 15.3915
68 6.1511
71 1.6852
74 -6.3113
77 -9.4767
80 -12.0679
83 -9.9136
298
Core 9

0 5.2439 87 -65.3625
3 36.7042 88 -4.6783
6 27.3699 91 77.4058
9 23.0422 94 56.7641
12 30.1755 97 47.3133
15 5.7975 100 30.7759
18 -10.6901 103 18.9341
21 -21.6255 106 16.1364
24 -18.6482 109 10.8206
27 -7.1892 112 -1.6926
30 8.6456 115 -10.3625
33 -11.0567 118 -13.6983
36 1.3699 121 -17.1065
39 -9.571 124 -26.1304
42 -18.5933 127 -30.1725
45 -21.092 130 -34.3796
48 -23.2785 133 -32.3871
51 -35.7834 136 -39.3921
54 -64.1294 139 -45.2488
57 -77.3933 142 -53.0471
60 -81.2924 145 -59.3989
63 -82.427 148 -64.1355
66 -87.9229 151 -68.1589
69 -90.5257 154 -69.7599
72 -96.2952
75 -96.2553
78 -101.2952
81 -96.2236
84 -96.3622
299
Core 10

0 3.0575 87 -4.1022
3 27.2872 90 7.2865
6 34.2947 93 4.8089
9 30.5114 96 29.4854
12 46.7331 99 -2.1246
15 61.8974 102 -7.8437
18 22.6822 105 -12.962
21 55.5806 108 -10.8864
24 47.3665 111 -8.114
27 34.5577 114 -8.6166
30 40.2948 117 -1.8682
33 15.7411 120 -2.5214
36 20.5933 123 -4.4402
39 24.4868 126 1.5388
42 40.8472 129 -6.3079
45 29.3653 132 -9.6418
48 22.7013 135 -9.4396
51 17.7217 138 -8.6335
54 10.3803 141 -8.9997
57 5.026 144 -7.4746
60 8.4418 147 -7.4027
63 -3.7673
66 13.0871
69 -2.1255
72 -19.2489
75 -27.0236
78 -27.1255
81 -32.498
84 -36.1286
300
Core 11

0 19.0867
123 -57.8592
3 22.3823
126 -63.0149
6 40.3152
129 -63.4328
9 4.181
132 -63.695
12 23.1402
135 -64.3087
15 88.1391
138 -63.5577
18 41.8879
141 -66.5842
21 -15.1977
144 -68.3904
24 -39.0224
147 -67.6608
27 -40.9884
150 -66.7358
30 -49.8058
153 -69.7756
33 -59.7566
156 -75.4249
36 -63.3642
159 -72.0632
39 -57.4271
162 -73.7894
42 -50.2064
165 -74.7199
45 -66.3742
168 -79.3337
48 -64.3583
171 -81.1817
51 -81.9316
174 -92.5774
54 -86.4522
57 -67.0745
60 -80.1444
63 -83.1323
66 -79.8558
69 -99.0888
72 -106.9114
75 -109.7215
78 -113.7144
81 -118.3216
84 -119.3119
87 -2.6876
90 8.8693
93 -9.3343
96 -22.4976
99 -34.8446
102 -40.8162
105 -46.4278
108 -49.2068
111 -50.8733
114 -51.9776
117 -55.2674
120 -57.5651
301
Core 12

0 -13.1473 126 -130.3632
3 -20.8188 129 -133.7748
6 -34.9227 132 -129.6427
9 -25.2944 135 -130.3458
12 -31.6426 138 -133.9567
15 -58.0905 141 -135.8621
18 -66.6995 144 -136.6447
21 -62.7376 147 -141.0215
24 -82.7483 150 -136.7171
27 -85.7224 153 -142.427
30 -78.7757 156 -141.418
33 -31.0866 159 -144.7899
36 -93.8921 162 -144.1195
39 -104.6368 165 -148.3518
42 -106.5748 168 -153.4596
45 -111.4984 171 -13.2099
48 -115.7032 174 -26.5624
51 -117.0992 177 -38.4516
54 -125.5599 180 -47.1286
57 -124.0907 183 -60.4634
60 -122.3836 186 -67.7871
63 -128.7648 189 -76.348
66 -126.0383 192 -81.902
69 -128.0413 195 -86.1553
72 -121.8742 198 -86.1355
75 -133.0502 201 -76.7244
78 -136.1706 204 -84.3808
81 -144.3876 207 -91.1654
84 -154.5574 210 -96.1116
87 -7.1808 213 -101.6814
90 -52.2913 216 -111.0636
93 -67.0461 219 -113.7694
96 -67.2825 222 -120.5251
99 -86.9234 225 -124.8399
102 -97.8679 228 -130.6749
105 -96.3793 231 -133.7712
108 -98.1334 234 -138.564
111 -118.7071 237 -140.4634
114 -117.3532 240 -141.6178
117 -121.0544 243 -146.9927
120 -124.1451 246 -148.7144
123 -126.6062 249 -152.2589
302
Continue core 12

252 -156.9324
255 -155.7895
258 -156.1258

303
304
Appendix D : Grain size analysis
Core 1 sample 1
size WT% cumulative WT%

0 1.516 1.516
0.321928 3.475 4.991
0.736965 4.14 9.131
1.736966 7.775 16.906
2.736966 7.971 24.877
3.736966 38.403 63.28
5.64385619 36.72 100
Mean size sorting

6.33377 8.839632
Core 1 sample 2
size WT % Cumulative WT %
0 1.117 1.117
0.321928 3.238 4.355
0.736965 5.785 10.14
1.736966 18.671 28.811
2.736966 24.524 53.335
3.736966 22.838 76.173
5.64385619 23.827 100
Mean size sorting

5.09153 8.493642
305
Core 1 sample 3
size WT % cumulative WT %
0 1.651 1.651
0.321928 2.915 4.566
0.736965 3.799 8.365
1.736966 14.429 22.794
2.736966 22.992 45.786
3.736966 27.14 72.926
5.64385619 27.074 100
Mean size sorting

6.580573 9.066486
Core 1 sample 4
0 6.945 6.945
0.321928 2.65 9.595
0.736965 3.057 12.652
1.736966 11.249 23.901
2.736966 19.759 43.66
3.736966 29.754 73.414
5.64385619 26.586 100
Mean size sorting

5.4685 8.619654
306
Core 1 sample 5
size WT % cumulativeWT %
0 2.98 2.98
0.321928 2.787 5.767
0.736965 3.64 9.407
1.736966 12.878 22.285
2.736966 22.384 44.669
3.736966 34.527 79.196
5.64385619 20.804 100
Mean size sorting

5.506978 7.819768
Core 1 sample 6
size WT% Cumulative WT%

0 10.958 10.958
0.321928 4.267 15.225
0.736965 5.723 20.948
1.736966 15.118 36.066
2.736966 20.065 56.131
3.736966 25.736 81.867
5.64385619 18.133 100
Mean size sorting

4.13475 8.08206
307
Core 1 sample 7
0 20.949 20.949
0.321928 5.501 26.45
0.736965 6.341 32.791
1.736966 14.324 47.115
2.736966 21.165 68.28
3.736966 19.862 88.142
5.64385619 11.858 100
Mean size sorting

2.881786 7.495146
Core 1 sample 8
size WT % cumulative WT%

0 20.349 20.349
0.321928 4.215 24.564
0.736965 5.857 30.421
1.736966 15.859 46.28
2.736966 24.085 70.365
3.736966 17.573 87.938
5.64385619 12.062 100
Mean size sorting

2.818043 7.57713
308
Core 1 sample 9
0 13.83 13.83
0.321928 5.279 19.109
0.736965 6.085 25.194
1.736966 15.091 40.285
2.736966 22.453 62.738
3.736966 20.412 83.15
5.64385619 16.85 100
Mean size sorting

3.5758 8.098216
Core 1 sample 10
0 10.231 10.231
0.321928 5.149 15.38
0.736965 6.662 22.042
1.736966 20.046 42.088
2.736966 28.617 70.705
3.736966 19.805 90.51
5.64385619 9.49 100
Mean size sorting

3.482771 7.050196
309
Core 2 sample 1

0 4.981 4.981
0.321928 4.598 9.579
0.736965 5.122 14.701
1.736966 11.992 26.693
2.736966 15.448 42.141
3.736966 25.44 67.581
5.64385619 32.419 100
Mean size sorting

5.255839 9.14149
Core 2 sample 2
0 17.241 17.241
0.321928 9.81 27.051
0.736965 9.511 36.562
1.736966 16.492 53.054
2.736966 21.986 75.04
3.736966 14.879 89.919
5.64385619 10.081 100
Mean size sorting

2.610193 7.160603
310
Core 2 sample 3
0 7.754 7.754
0.321928 5.239 12.993
0.736965 7.807 20.8
1.736966 17.744 38.544
2.736966 31.624 70.168
3.736966 20.145 90.313
5.64385619 9.687 100
Mean size sorting

3.714673 7.026248
Core 2 sample 4
0 9.07 9.07
0.321928 4.529 13.599
0.736965 5.905 19.504
1.736966 12.857 32.361
2.736966 33.027 65.388
3.736966 27.835 93.223
5.64385619 6.777 100
Mean size sorting

3.919714 6.748145
311
Core 2 sample 5
size WT% cumulative WT %

0 16.614 16.614
0.321928 5.16 21.774
0.736965 4.92 26.694
1.736966 11.802 38.496
2.736966 29.354 67.85
3.736966 30.29 98.14
5.64385619 1.86 100
Mean size sorting

3.23065 6.599271
Core 2 sample 6
0 11.766 11.766
0.321928 3.518 15.284
0.736965 4.545 19.829
1.736966 10.982 30.811
2.736966 29.922 60.733
3.736966 37.695 98.428
5.64385619 1.572 100
Mean size sorting

3.973583 6.66662
312
Core 3 sample 1

0 12.636 12.636
0.321928 3.975 16.611
0.736965 4.307 20.918
1.736966 7.429 28.347
2.736966 6.665 35.012
3.736966 34.028 69.04
5.64385619 30.96 100
Mean size sorting

3.0551 7.308591
Core 3 sample 2
0 14.221 14.221
0.321928 5.407 19.628
0.736965 7.675 27.303
1.736966 18.575 45.878
2.736966 19.461 65.339
3.736966 18.054 83.393
5.64385619 16.607 100
Mean size sorting

2.603333 6.83197
313
Core 3 sample 3

0 9.713 9.713
0.321928 3.923 13.636
0.736965 5.654 19.29
1.736966 16.091 35.381
2.736966 19.215 54.596
3.736966 26.055 80.651
5.64385619 19.349 100
Mean size sorting

2.411333 6.962644
Core 3 sample 4

0 10.846 10.846
0.321928 3.598 14.444
0.736965 4.656 19.1
1.736966 12.749 31.849
2.736966 19.323 51.172
3.736966 30.2 81.372
5.64385619 18.628 100
Mean size sorting

2.26 8.868258
314
Core 3 sample 5

0 12.297 12.297
0.321928 3.562 15.859
0.736965 5.31 21.169
1.736966 14.819 35.988
2.736966 41.575 77.563
3.736966 20.632 98.195
5.64385619 1.805 100
Mean size sorting

1.133333 5.394
Core 3 sample 6
size WT% Cumulative WT %

0 7.58 7.58
0.321928 3.659 11.239
0.736965 5.588 16.827
1.736966 14.779 31.606
2.736966 26.043 57.649
3.736966 24.062 81.711
5.64385619 18.289 100
Mean size sorting

3.826667 4.614773
315
Core 3 sample 7
0 13.825 13.825
0.321928 5.019 18.844
0.736965 6.616 25.46
1.736966 15.425 40.885
2.736966 26.575 67.46
3.736966 20.563 88.023
5.64385619 11.977 100
Mean size sorting

2.168 6.854667
Core 3 sample 8

0 10.434 10.434
0.321928 3.548 13.982
0.736965 4.49 18.472
1.736966 10.457 28.929
2.736966 31.902 60.831
3.736966 34.684 95.515
5.64385619 4.485 100
Mean size sorting

4.503333 8.117197
316
Core 3 sample 9

0 17.504 17.504
0.321928 5.288 22.792
0.736965 5.944 28.736
1.736966 12.566 41.302
2.736966 28.547 69.849
3.736966 26.365 96.214
5.64385619 3.7866 100.0006
Mean size sorting

5.521667 8.403295
Core 4 sample 1

0 20.868 20.868
0.321928 5.971 26.839
0.736965 7.033 33.872
1.736966 14.446 48.318
2.736966 19.609 67.927
3.736966 15.972 83.899
5.64385619 16.101 100
Mean size sorting

2.61 8.152424
317
Core 4 sample 2
0 10.467 10.467
0.321928 4.664 15.131
0.736965 7.441 22.572
1.736966 18.776 41.348
2.736966 27.045 68.393
3.736966 19.205 87.598
5.64385619 12.402 100
Mean size sorting

3.612333 7.475674
Core 4 sample 3
0 4.267 4.267
0.321928 2.509 6.776
0.736965 4.977 11.753
1.736966 17.793 29.546
2.736966 41.518 71.064
3.736966 22.173 93.237
5.64385619 6.763 100
Mean size sorting

4.417333 6.411205
318
Core 4 sample 4

0 1.974 1.974
0.321928 1.521 3.495
0.736965 2.94 6.435
1.736966 13.239 19.674
2.736966 44.122 63.796
3.736966 29.995 93.791
5.64385619 6.209 100
Mean size sorting

5.139333 6.347348
Core 4 sample 5
0 1.492 1.492
0.321928 0.996 2.488
0.736965 2.348 4.836
1.736966 19.587 24.423
2.736966 54.548 78.971
3.736966 18.903 97.874
5.64385619 2.126 100
Mean size sorting

4.651133 5.529535
319
Core 4 sample 6
0 1.98 1.98
0.321928 1.176 3.156
0.736965 2.204 5.36
1.736966 14.286 19.646
2.736966 49.199 68.845
3.736966 29.081 97.926
5.64385619 2.074 100
Mean size sorting

5.05732 5.918961
Core 4 sample 7
0 5.032 5.032
0.321928 2.25 7.282
0.736965 4.296 11.578
1.736966 17.577 29.155
2.736966 43.282 72.437
3.736966 22.791 95.228
5.64385619 4.772 100
Mean size sorting

4.3663 6.256008
320
Core 4 sample 8
0 3.749 3.749
0.321928 1.338 5.087
0.736965 2.404 7.491
1.736966 12.335 19.826
2.736966 43.912 63.738
3.736966 34.301 98.039
5.64385619 1.961 100
Mean size sorting

5.112867 6.173006
Core 4 sample 9

0 28.101 28.101
0.321928 5.886 33.987
0.736965 7.673 41.66
1.736966 17.664 59.324
2.736966 18.281 77.605
3.736966 15.24 92.845
5.64385619 7.155 100
Mean size sorting

1.95299 6.695535
321
Core 5 sample 1

0 17.86 17.86
0.321928 5.667 23.527
0.736965 7.56 31.087
1.736966 17.098 48.185
2.736966 21.178 69.363
3.736966 20.526 89.889
5.64385619 10.111 100
Mean size sorting

2.74735 7.207403
Core 5 sample 2
0 14.668 14.668
0.321928 6.026 20.694
0.736965 8.783 29.477
1.736966 18.397 47.874
2.736966 19.26 67.134
3.736966 14.08 81.214
5.64385619 18.786 100
Mean size sorting

3.194333 8.320795
322
Core 5 sample 3
0 9.063 9.063
0.321928 5.166 14.229
0.736965 7.214 21.443
1.736966 16.778 38.221
2.736966 39.002 77.223
3.736966 19.362 96.585
5.64385619 3.415 100
Mean size sorting

3.444333 6.181198
Core 5 sample 4
0 8.832 8.832
0.321928 5.005 13.837
0.736965 8.729 22.566
1.736966 23.847 46.413
2.736966 39.947 86.36
3.736966 11.968 98.328
5.64385619 1.672 100
Mean size sorting

3.143667 5.499894
323
Core 6 sample 1

0 12.08 12.08
0.321928 5.501 17.581
0.736965 7.653 25.234
1.736966 20.936 46.17
2.736966 33.546 79.716
3.736966 15.336 95.052
5.64385619 4.948 100
Mean size sorting

2.9542 6.301268
Core 6 sample 2
0 6.629 6.629
0.321928 5.523 12.152
0.736965 10.884 23.036
1.736966 30.902 53.938
2.736966 30.55 84.488
3.736966 11.7 96.188
5.64385619 3.812 100
Mean size sorting

3.016567 5.800123
324
Core 6 sample 3
0 5.373 5.373
0.321928 2.471 7.844
0.736965 4.715 12.559
1.736966 18.741 31.3
2.736966 42.834 74.134
3.736966 23.531 97.665
5.64385619 2.335 100
Mean size sorting

4.230667 6.066864
Core 6 sample 4
0 7.461 7.461
0.321928 4.024 11.485
0.736965 5.243 16.728
1.736966 12.751 29.479
2.736966 34.17 63.649
3.736966 33.099 96.748
5.64385619 3.252 100
Mean size sorting

4.14435 6.565728
325
Core 6 sample 5
0 21.232 21.232
0.321928 3.486 24.718
0.736965 4.22 28.938
1.736966 13.023 41.961
2.736966 39.06 81.021
3.736966 16.889 97.91
5.64385619 2.09 100
Mean size sorting

2.792303 6.09195
Core 6 sample 6
0 5.714 5.714
0.321928 1.877 7.591
0.736965 3.492 11.083
1.736966 8.056 19.139
2.736966 7.149 26.288
3.736966 50.041 76.329
5.64385619 23.571 99.9
Mean size sorting

5.77684 7.746483
326
Core 6 sample 7
0 6.71 6.71
0.321928 4.838 11.548
0.736965 7.451 18.999
1.736966 18.138 37.137
2.736966 19.345 56.482
3.736966 20.685 77.167
5.64385619 22.833 100
Mean size sorting

4.407733 8.591306
Core 6 sample 8
0 12.974 12.974
0.321928 3.688 16.662
0.736965 5.139 21.801
1.736966 13.819 35.62
2.736966 19.25 54.87
3.736966 23.246 78.116
5.64385619 21.884 100
Mean size sorting

4.124667 8.556376
327
Core 6 sample 9
0 20.926 20.926
0.321928 5.227 26.153
0.736965 9.033 35.186
1.736966 23.875 59.061
2.736966 25.999 85.06
3.736966 10.568 95.628
5.64385619 4.372 100
Mean size sorting

2.126867 6.011352
Core 6 sample 10
0 8.888 8.888
0.321928 5.284 14.172
0.736965 7.095 21.267
1.736966 18.871 40.138
2.736966 34.261 74.399
3.736966 22.765 97.164
5.64385619 2.836 100
Mean size sorting

2.158133 5.641148
328
Core 7 sample 1

0 19.705 19.705
0.321928 4.66 24.365
0.736965 5.441 29.806
1.736966 12.106 41.912
2.736966 12.109 54.021
3.736966 22.004 76.025
5.64385619 23.975 100
Mean size sorting

3.559667 8.908765
Core 7 sample 2
0 1.479 1.479
0.321928 1.991 3.47
0.736965 3.739 7.209
1.736966 18.045 25.254
2.736966 24.221 49.475
3.736966 26.999 76.474
5.64385619 23.526 100
Mean size sorting

5.427333 8.258818
329
Core 7 sample 3
0 7.745 7.745
0.321928 4.267 12.012
0.736965 6.528 18.54
1.736966 14.631 33.171
2.736966 16.548 49.719
3.736966 31.631 81.35
5.64385619 18.65 100
Mean size sorting

4.609333 7.874689
Core 7 sample 4
0 5.017 5.017
0.321928 5.279 10.296
0.736965 9.404 19.7
1.736966 20.586 40.286
2.736966 22.231 62.517
3.736966 21.633 84.15
5.64385619 15.85 100
Mean size sorting

4.035333 7.772455
330
Core 7 sample 5
0 16.421 16.421
0.321928 6.253 22.674
0.736965 6.933 29.607
1.736966 14.186 43.793
2.736966 25.079 68.872
3.736966 20.125 88.997
5.64385619 11.003 100
Mean size sorting

3.146333 7.327932
Core 7 sample 6
0 17.089 17.089
0.321928 4.37 21.459
0.736965 5.675 27.134
1.736966 14.06 41.194
2.736966 19.277 60.471
3.736966 21.661 82.132
5.64385619 17.868 100
Mean size sorting

3.145 7.283932
331
Core 7 sample 7
0 2.677 2.677
0.321928 2.189 4.866
0.736965 4.133 8.999
1.736966 12.959 21.958
2.736966 35.526 57.484
3.736966 38.678 96.162
5.64385619 3.838 100
Mean size sorting

5.089 6.445371
Core 7 sample 8
0 3.342 3.342
0.321928 2.276 5.618
0.736965 4.229 9.847
1.736966 16.873 26.72
2.736966 45.967 72.687
3.736966 25.797 98.484
5.64385619 1.516 100
Mean size sorting

4.566333 5.950106
332
Core 8 sample 1
0 20.675 20.675
0.321928 5.094 25.769
0.736965 5.709 31.478
1.736966 13.476 44.954
2.736966 17.944 62.898
3.736966 20.785 83.683
5.64385619 16.317 100
Mean size sorting

2.936667 8.100682
Core 8 sample 2
0 11.854 11.854
0.321928 5.719 17.573
0.736965 7.968 25.541
1.736966 17.606 43.147
2.736966 19.204 62.351
3.736966 25.493 87.844
5.64385619 12.156 100
Mean size sorting

3.563333 7.391894
333
Core 8 sample 3
0 12.99 12.99
0.321928 5.506 18.496
0.736965 7.494 25.99
1.736966 16.485 42.475
2.736966 20.307 62.782
3.736966 23.481 86.263
5.64385619 13.737 100
Mean size sorting

3.54 7.601212
Core 8 sample 4
0 5.575 5.575
0.321928 5.022 10.597
0.736965 10.469 21.066
1.736966 28.401 49.467
2.736966 20.078 69.545
3.736966 15.339 84.884
5.64385619 15.116 100
Mean size sorting

3.53 7.738227
334
Core 8 sample 5
0 7.791 7.791
0.321928 2.314 10.105
0.736965 3.58 13.685
1.736966 13.61 27.295
2.736966 40.906 68.201
3.736966 22.597 90.798
5.64385619 9.202 100
Mean size sorting

4.473 6.872477
Core 8 sample 6
0 2.102 2.102
0.321928 1.637 3.739
0.736965 3.341 7.08
1.736966 14.67 21.75
2.736966 41.881 63.631
3.736966 27.373 91.004
5.64385619 8.996 100
Mean size sorting

5.066 6.644068
335
Core 8 sample 7
0 2.811 2.811
0.321928 2.381 5.192
0.736965 4.761 9.953
1.736966 18.791 28.744
2.736966 36.495 65.239
3.736966 24.988 90.227
5.64385619 9.773 100
Mean size sorting

4.643333 6.827212
Core 8 sample 8
0 4.576 4.576
0.321928 4.191 8.767
0.736965 7.763 16.53
1.736966 24.216 40.746
2.736966 30.117 70.863
3.736966 19.961 90.824
5.64385619 9.176 100
Mean size sorting

3.853667 6.859189
336
Core 8 sample 9
0 5.259 5.259
0.321928 4.712 9.971
0.736965 8.533 18.504
1.736966 23.677 42.181
2.736966 31.706 73.887
3.736966 18.695 92.582
5.64385619 7.418 100
Mean size sorting

3.786667 6.868432
Core 8 sample 10
0 47.888 47.888
0.321928 15.571 63.459
0.736965 10.567 74.026
1.736966 12.851 86.877
2.736966 8.662 95.539
3.736966 4.116 99.655
5.64385619 0.615 100.27
Mean size sorting

0.343667 3.553182
337
Core 9 sample 1
0 30 30
0.321928 3.948 33.948
0.736965 6 39.948
1.736966 1.616 41.564
2.736966 17.006 58.57
3.736966 17.14 75.71
5.64385619 24.29 100
Mean size sorting

3.281333 9.046121
Core 9 sample 2
0 2.866 2.866
0.321928 1.744 4.61
0.736965 2.286 6.896
1.736966 7.879 14.775
2.736966 8.924 23.699
3.736966 36.107 59.806
5.64385619 40.194 100
Mean size sorting

7.052333 8.930379
338
Core 9 sample 3
0 1.922 1.922
0.321928 0.988 2.91
0.736965 2.487 5.397
1.736966 22.663 28.06
2.736966 62.407 90.467
3.736966 7.156 97.623
5.64385619 2.377 100
Mean size sorting

4.39 4.889439
Core 9 sample 4
0 13.306 13.306
0.321928 7.608 20.914
0.736965 9.232 30.146
1.736966 17.168 47.314
2.736966 13.067 60.381
3.736966 25.112 85.493
5.64385619 14.507 100
Mean size sorting

3.279 7.672144
339
Core 9 sample 5
0 5.608 5.608
0.321928 3.922 9.53
0.736965 5.718 15.248
1.736966 18.1 33.348
2.736966 28.262 61.61
3.736966 21.006 82.616
5.64385619 17.384 100
Mean size sorting

4.378333 8.00303
Core 9 sample 6
0 3.909 3.909
0.321928 2.029 5.938
0.736965 3.91 9.848
1.736966 17.192 27.04
2.736966 46.686 73.726
3.736966 24.519 98.245
5.64385619 1.755 100
Mean size sorting

4.378333 7.94303
340
Core 9 sample 7
0 1.839 1.839
0.321928 1.448 3.287
0.736965 2.941 6.228
1.736966 18.49 24.718
2.736966 52.466 77.184
3.736966 13.853 91.037
5.64385619 8.963 100
Mean size sorting

4.645667 5.921045
Core 9 sample 8
0 0.434 0.434
0.321928 0.639 1.073
0.736965 2.108 3.181
1.736966 22.012 25.193
2.736966 67.129 92.322
3.736966 4.206 96.528
5.64385619 3.472 100
Mean size sorting

4.746667 6.8925
341
Core 9 sample 9
0 1.408 1.408
0.321928 1.524 2.932
0.736965 3.903 6.835
1.736966 30.593 37.428
2.736966 56.744 94.172
3.736966 3.622 97.794
5.64385619 2.206 100
Mean size sorting

3.97 4.647561
Core 9 sample 10
0 3.509 3.509
0.321928 1.295 4.804
0.736965 2.69 7.494
1.736966 17.405 24.899
2.736966 47.067 71.966
3.736966 22.487 94.453
5.64385619 5.547 100
Mean size sorting

4.756 6.198659
342
Core 9 sample 11
0 3.315 3.315
0.321928 2.344 5.659
0.736965 4.935 10.594
1.736966 16.751 27.345
2.736966 44.147 71.492
3.736966 24.123 95.615
5.64385619 4.385 100
Mean size sorting

4.538533 6.145212
Core 10 sample 1
0 6.218 6.218
0.321928 4.247 10.465
0.736965 5.447 15.912
1.736966 10.081 25.993
2.736966 6.807 32.8
3.736966 31.491 64.291
5.64385619 35.709 100
Mean size sorting

5.437333 9.155152
343
Core 10 sample 2
0 11.452 11.452
0.321928 5.568 17.02
0.736965 7.146 24.166
1.736966 15.77 39.936
2.736966 15.462 55.398
3.736966 26.091 81.489
5.64385619 18.511 100
Mean size sorting

1290.38 8.093182
Core 10 sample 3
0 10.549 10.549
0.321928 4.603 15.152
0.736965 6.955 22.107
1.736966 14.546 36.653
2.736966 17.9 54.553
3.736966 23.196 77.749
5.64385619 22.251 100
Mean size sorting

4.99 7.655432
344
Core 10 sample 4
0 13.758 13.758
0.321928 4.032 17.79
0.736965 5.453 23.243
1.736966 14.843 38.086
2.736966 19.629 57.715
3.736966 21.844 79.559
5.64385619 20.441 100
Mean size sorting

3.501667 7.650432
Core 10 sample 5
0 10.065 10.065
0.321928 5.696 15.761
0.736965 9.239 25
1.736966 19.811 44.811
2.736966 20.169 64.98
3.736966 20.92 85.9
5.64385619 14.1 100
Mean size sorting

3.571333 7.642705
345
Core 10 sample 6
0 22.967 22.967
0.321928 6.79 29.757
0.736965 8.252 38.009
1.736966 14.72 52.729
2.736966 11.574 64.303
3.736966 19.403 83.706
5.64385619 16.294 100
Mean size sorting

2.558 8.056432
Core 10 sample 7
0 22.427 22.427
0.321928 11.185 33.612
0.736965 13.982 47.594
1.736966 23.76 71.354
2.736966 12.991 84.345
3.736966 10.598 94.943
5.64385619 5.057 100
Mean size sorting

1.598333 5.682985
346
Core 10 sample 8
0 5.061 5.061
0.321928 4.958 10.019
0.736965 8.251 18.27
1.736966 21.226 39.496
2.736966 36.676 76.172
3.736966 19.194 95.366
5.64385619 4.634 100
Mean size sorting

3.072667 6.393205
Core 10 sample 9
0 5.049 5.049
0.321928 3.466 8.515
0.736965 6.746 15.261
1.736966 19.703 34.964
2.736966 34.84 69.804
3.736966 22.215 92.019
5.64385619 7.981 100
Mean size sorting

4.067333 6.683636
347
Core 10 sample 10
0 5.379 5.379
0.321928 3.316 8.695
0.736965 5.837 14.532
1.736966 21.458 35.99
2.736966 39.146 75.136
3.736966 23.372 98.508
5.64385619 1.492 100
Mean size sorting

3.975667 6.014902
Core 11 sample 1

0 11.988 11.988
0.321928 4.821 16.809
0.736965 7.175 23.984
1.736966 23.451 47.435
2.736966 26.101 73.536
3.736966 15.357 88.893
5.64385619 11.107 100
Mean size sorting

3.0551 7.308591
348
Core 11 sample 2
0 10.002 10.002
0.321928 6.29 16.292
0.736965 11.833 28.125
1.736966 32.391 60.516
2.736966 23.359 83.875
3.736966 7.461 91.336
5.64385619 8.664 100
Mean size sorting

2.603333 6.83197
Core 11 sample 3
0 10.086 10.086
0.321928 9.937 20.023
0.736965 15.85 35.873
1.736966 30.433 66.306
2.736966 12.631 78.937
3.736966 9.7 88.637
5.64385619 11.363 100
Mean size sorting

2.411333 6.962644
349
Core 11 sample 4
0 21.078 21.078
0.321928 7.295 28.373
0.736965 10.255 38.628
1.736966 21.391 60.019
2.736966 12.408 72.427
3.736966 9.7 82.127
5.64385619 11.363 93.49
Mean size sorting

2.26 8.868258
Core 11 sample 5
0 40.677 40.677
0.321928 8.696 49.373
0.736965 10.204 59.577
1.736966 17.489 77.066
2.736966 10.146 87.212
3.736966 7.402 94.614
5.64385619 5.386 100
Mean size sorting

1.133333 5.394
350
Core 11 sample 6
0 0.848 0.848
0.321928 1.313 2.161
0.736965 4.696 6.857
1.736966 34.518 41.375
2.736966 54.704 96.079
3.736966 2.3 98.379
5.64385619 1.621 100
Mean size sorting

3.826667 4.614773
Core 11 sample 7
0 13.269 13.269
0.321928 10.165 23.434
0.736965 14.999 38.433
1.736966 28.467 66.9
2.736966 14.591 81.491
3.736966 8.007 89.498
5.64385619 10.502 100
Mean size sorting

2.168 6.854667
351
Core 11 sample 8
0 7.155 7.155
0.321928 3.783 10.938
0.736965 6.379 17.317
1.736966 17.027 34.344
2.736966 19.941 54.285
3.736966 26.131 80.416
5.64385619 19.584 100
Mean size sorting

4.503333 8.117197
Core 11 sample 9
0 4.078 4.078
0.321928 2.223 6.301
0.736965 3.898 10.199
1.736966 13.951 24.15
2.736966 19.363 43.513
3.736966 30.763 74.276
5.64385619 25.724 100
Mean size sorting

5.521667 8.403295
352
Core 11 sample 10
0 7.479 7.479
0.321928 3.866 11.345
0.736965 6.738 18.083
1.736966 16.711 34.794
2.736966 19.754 54.548
3.736966 30.446 84.994
5.64385619 15.006 100
Mean size sorting

4.395333 7.523212
Core 11 sample 11
0 13.374 13.374
0.321928 4.919 18.293
0.736965 6.201 24.494
1.736966 14.968 39.462
2.736966 18.022 57.484
3.736966 25.313 82.797
5.64385619 17.203 100
Mean size sorting

3.802 7.975182
353
Core 11 sample 12
0 10.711 10.711
0.321928 3.694 14.405
0.736965 5.85 20.255
1.736966 14.821 35.076
2.736966 18.712 53.788
3.736966 29.811 83.599
5.64385619 16.401 100
Mean size sorting

4.276667 7.708561
Core 12 sample 1

0 9.854 9.854
0.321928 5.75 15.604
0.736965 8.798 24.402
1.736966 20.983 45.385
2.736966 27.509 72.894
3.736966 14.455 87.349
5.64385619 12.651 100
Mean size sorting

3.075333 7.631083
354
Core 12 sample 2
0 4.632 4.632
0.321928 4.193 8.825
0.736965 9.161 17.986
1.736966 43.668 61.654
2.736966 28.44 90.094
3.736966 7.465 97.559
5.64385619 2.441 100
Mean size sorting

2.826667 5.420303
Core 12 sample 3
0 8.819 8.819
0.321928 3.271 12.09
0.736965 5.559 17.649
1.736966 25.105 42.754
2.736966 50.012 92.766
3.736966 4.888 97.654
5.64385619 2.346 100
Mean size sorting

3.339667 5.02425
355
Core 12 sample 4
0 2.539 2.539
0.321928 3.144 5.683
0.736965 5.949 11.632
1.736966 15.052 26.684
2.736966 10.793 37.477
3.736966 22.711 60.188
5.64385619 39.812 100
Mean size sorting

5.936667 9.46303
Core 12 sample 5
0 4.68 4.68
0.321928 6.167 10.847
0.736965 11.747 22.594
1.736966 32.955 55.549
2.736966 35.854 91.403
3.736966 5.662 97.065
5.64385619 2.935 100
Mean size sorting

3.553333 4.313409
356
Core 12 sample 6
0 11.792 11.792
0.321928 4.069 15.861
0.736965 5.672 21.533
1.736966 14.261 35.794
2.736966 31.853 67.647
3.736966 18.887 86.534
5.64385619 13.466 100
Mean size sorting

3.71 7.66803
Core 12 sample 7
0 15.062 15.062
0.321928 5.53 20.592
0.736965 7.774 28.366
1.736966 21.463 49.829
2.736966 18.533 68.362
3.736966 20.752 89.114
5.64385619 10.886 100
Mean size sorting

2.964333 7.324447
357
Core 12 sample 8
0 2.008 2.008
0.321928 2.098 4.106
0.736965 4.8 8.906
1.736966 15.069 23.975
2.736966 22.651 46.626
3.736966 37.649 84.275
5.64385619 15.725 100
Mean size sorting

5.293333 7.278864
Core 12 sample 9
0 0.623 0.623
0.321928 0.674 1.297
0.736965 2.252 3.549
1.736966 13.422 16.971
2.736966 20.545 37.516
3.736966 46.18 83.696
5.64385619 16.304 100
Mean size sorting

5.926667 7.091667
358
Core 12 sample 10
0 1.645 1.645
0.321928 1.656 3.301
0.736965 2.486 5.787
1.736966 5.867 11.654
2.736966 9.46 21.114
3.736966 65.026 86.14
5.64385619 13.86 100
Mean size sorting

7.02 6.731061
Core 12 sample 11
0 18.281 18.281
0.321928 6.467 24.748
0.736965 9.038 33.786
1.736966 20.24 54.026
2.736966 19.068 73.094
3.736966 14.157 87.251
5.64385619 12.749 100
Mean size sorting

2.56 7.622273
359
Core 12 sample 12
0 12.174 12.174
0.321928 6.325 18.499
0.736965 9.701 28.2
1.736966 27.948 56.148
2.736966 35.438 91.586
3.736966 4.988 96.574
5.64385619 3.426 100
Mean size sorting

2.57 5.132727
Core 12 sample 13
0 12.735 12.735
0.321928 4.881 17.616
0.736965 6.162 23.778
1.736966 14.451 38.229
2.736966 22.015 60.244
3.736966 29.012 89.256
5.64385619 10.744 100
Mean size sorting

3.713333 7.26053
360
Core 12 sample 14
0 2.5 2.5
0.321928 2.196 4.696
0.736965 4.124 8.82
1.736966 16.57 25.39
2.736966 35.652 61.042
3.736966 25.582 86.624
5.64385619 13.376 100
Mean size sorting

4.916667 7.232955
Core 12 sample 15
0 6.321 6.321
0.321928 3.465 9.786
0.736965 5.701 15.487
1.736966 15.566 31.053
2.736966 35.536 66.589
3.736966 29.898 96.487
5.64385619 3.513 100
Mean size sorting

4.136667 6.443788
361
Core 12 sample 16
0 4.265 4.265
0.321928 2.435 6.7
0.736965 5.084 11.784
1.736966 15.797 27.581
2.736966 37.109 64.69
3.736966 32.643 97.333
5.64385619 2.667 100
Mean size sorting

4.543333 6.332348

362
Appendix E : Radiocarbon dating samples calibrated with Oxcal 2009
Table 1: Radiocarbon dating samples and calibrate date in Kafr Saber site using
OxCal v4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2013)
Sample Laboratory Type of Depth

No. Date BP Calibrated. date
name Name samples (m)
1 RHSX Poznan Dendropoma Boulder 8380 ± 40 BP 7597-6812 BC
2 KSB2S2 Poznan Dendropoma Boulder 890 ± 30 BP 940-1446 AD
TSU P1
3 Poznan Charcoal 35 110.14±0.3 BP Modern
S07B
TSUP1
4 CIRAM Charcoal 53 40560 BP 39000-38250 BC
S09B
5 TSU P3S2 CIRAM charcoal 73 1075 ± 30 BP 890 ± 1020 AD
6 TSU P3S3 CIRAM Charcoal 100 6240 BP 5300 ± 5070 BC
7 TSU P4 S4 CIRAM Charcoal 15 Modern -
8 TSU P4 S6 Poznan Charcoal 25 101.42 ± 0.68 BP 1700 ± 1920 AD
17200 ± 15900
10 TSU P4 S5 Poznan Charcoal 60 15490 ± 70 BP
BC
12 TSU P5S1 Poznan Charcoal 12 2145 ± 30 BP 360 ± 50BC
13 TSU P5S3 Poznan Charcoal 17 2060 ± 35 BP 180 ± 30 AD
14 TSU P5S4 Poznan Charcoal 33 2590 ± 140 BP 1050 ± 350 BC
CIRAM Lab. : science for art cultural heritage , archeology department

http://www.ciram-art.com/en/archaeology.html
contact person : Dr Armel BOUVIER
Poznan Lab. : Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poland, email: c.fourteen

[at]radiocarbon.pl http://radiocarbon.pl/index.php?lang=en.

363

364

365

366

367

368
Table 2: Radiocarbon dating samples and calibrate date in El Alamein site using
OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2013)
Laboratory Type of Depth Calibrated date

No. Sample name Date BP
Name samples (m) ı
1 core 1/1sa1 Poznan charcoal 40 13430±60 13985-14415 BC
2 core 1/1sa2 Poznan Bone 50 1540±60 403-634 AD
3 core2/1sa6 Poznan gastropods 75 32000±360 32971-34681 BC
5 core 3/1sa2 Poznan bivalve 37 45000±2000 43618 BC
6 core 3/1sa1 Poznan shell 45 33500±600 34218- 37224 BC
7 core 4/1sa1 Poznan shell 28 31840±350 32887-34447BC
gastropod
8 core 5/1sa3 Poznan 50 446600±1400 442182-448237 BC
+shell
9 core 6/1 sa6 Poznan gastropod 45 34000±400 35002-37441 BC
10 core 6/1sa9 Poznan coral 60 50000±4000 42776-69225 BC
core 6/2 sa1 Poznan charcoal 80 125±30 1620 AD
12 core 7/1 sa1 3R]QDQ VKHOO 3000±30 293-1113 BC
13 core 9/1sa1 Poznan gastropod 24 3320±30 1052-1888 BC
14 core 9/1sa5 Poznan bivalve 55 40000±800 40521-43169 BC
15 core10/1sa3 Poznan shells 20 4515 ±30 2623-3521 BC
16 core 10/1sa2 Poznan bone 70 42000±1300 41256-46581 BC
Beta
17 core 11/1sa1 gastropod 20 5230±30 3638-4328 BC
analytic
Beta
18 core 11/2sa2 shell 62 16900±60 17869-18741 BC
analytic
gastropod
19 core11/2Sa4 Poznan 116 4500±35 2619-3386 BC
+shell
20 core 11 2_5 Poznan gastropod 121 4360±40 2457-3366 BC
21 core11/2sa6 Poznan gastropod 126 4405±35 2477-3368 BC
Beta
22 core11/2sa1 roots 139 4810±30 2666 - 2817 BC
analytic
Beta
23 core11/2 sa11 shells 152 32500±500 33294-36120 BC
analytic
Beta
24 core 11-2 charcoal 180 5020±30 3710-3943 BC
analytic
Beta
analytic
Beta broken
28 core 12/2 sa3 117 37940±420 39560 -40811 BC
analytic shell
Beta
29 core 12/2sa4 roots 135 5060±30 3365-4071 BC
analytic
CIRAM
30 E1 A1sa1 charcoal 25 130±20 1680-1908 AD
E1A1sa2 CIRAM charcoal 56 190±20 1661-1931 AD
369

CIRAM Lab. science for art cultural heritage , archeology department http://www.ciram-
art.com/en/archaeology.html
contact person : Dr. Armel BOUVIER
Poznan Lab. Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poland, email: c.fourteen

[at]radiocarbon.pl http://radiocarbon.pl/index.php?lang=en.
Beta Analytic radiocarbon dating , Miami, Florida, USA

http://www.radiocarbon.com/, e-mail: lab@radiocarbon.com
370

371

372

373
374

375
376
377
378
379
380
Appendix F
Theory and definitions
1. Seismotectonic methodology
1.1. Focal mechanisms

The description of an earthquake rupture (Fig.1) consists of three angle, the
strike angle ĭ which is the azimuth (with respect to the North) of the trace of the fault
RQ D KRUL]RQWDO SODQH VXFK DV WKH (DUWKµV VXUIDFH WKH GLS DQJOH į characterizes the
steepness of the fault and the rake or slip angle Ȝ, the direction of motion, within the
fault plane and relative to the horizontal of the hanging wall relative to the foot wall.
Fig.1 sketch show the geometry of the fault description
The complete characteristic of an earthquake focal mechanism provides important

information, including the origin time, epicenter location, focal depth, seismic
moment (a direct measure of the energy radiated by an earthquake) and the magnitude
and spatial orientation of the 9 components of the moment tensor (Aki and Richards,
1980). From the moment tensor the orientation and sense of slip of the fault is
resolved.
381
The Focal mechanisms are represented as a beach ball (Sykes 1967) in which
the lower hemisphere stereographic projections show two black quadrants and two
white quadrants separated by great circles arcs oriented 90ஈ from each other. The great
circle arcs are the nodal planes, one of which coincides with the fault rupture that
generates the earthquake. The strike of the fault is indicated by a line connecting the
two points at which the great circle corresponding to the fault intersects the outer edge
of the beach ball diagram (fig.2). The dip direction is 90ஈ from strike, in the direction
indicated by the bold arrow from the center of the plot to the middle of the great circle
arc.
The rake of the hanging wall slip vector (Cronin and Sverdrup 1998) is
measured in the fault plane, relative to reference strike of the fault plane. An angle
measured through an anticlockwise rotation from the reference strike is considered a
positive angle; an angle measured clockwise from reference strike is a negative angle.
A slip vector that is directed up relative to strike has a positive rake and a slip vector
that is directed down the plane is negative. The range of permissible rake is +180 ஈ to -
180ஈ.
Fig. 2 Strike and dip direction of fault plane in the hemisphere stereographic projections.
According to Aki and Richards (1980), a rake of 90ஈ indicates slip that is entirely
reverse with no strike slip component. Similarity, hanging wall slip vectors with
negative rake have at least some component of normal slip with rake of -90ஈ
indicating slip that is entirely normal with no strike slip component.
382
1.2. Stress tensor
7KH VWUHVV GLUHFWLRQV LQ WKH (DUWK¶V FUXVW DUH FORVH WR YHUWLFDO DQG KRrizontal
directions. Anderson (1951) developed a simple scheme connecting the basic stress
UHJLPHVLQWKH(DUWK¶V FUXVWZLWKW\SHRIIDXOWLQJRQDSUH-existing fault in the crust
(Fig. 3). Anderson (1951) distinguishes three possible combinations of magnitudes of
principal stresses: the vertical stress is maximum, intermediate or minimum with
respect to the horizontal stresses. If the vertical stress is maximum, the hanging wall is
moving downwards with respect to the foot wall and the normal faulting is observed
along a deeply steeping fault. If the vertical stress is minimum, the crust is in
horizontal compression and the hanging wall is moving upwards with respect to the
foot wall and reverse faulting is observed along a shallow dipping fault. Finally, if the
vertical stress is intermediate, the foot and hanging walls are moving horizontally and
the strike slip faulting is observed along a nearly vertical fault.
7KH $QGHUVRQ¶V FODVVLILFDWLRQ LV VLPSOH DQG VWLOO SURYHG YDOLGLW\ IRU PDQ\
seismically active regions and helpful for rough assessment of stress regime (Simpson
1997; Hardebeck and Michael 2006).
Stress is the key in understanding the behavior offaults and other tectonic
structures such as deformation processes of the crust. Stress field studies in
activezones have widely developed within the last 30 years, by means of in site
measurements;faults slip data and focal mechanisms of earthquakes. Focal
mechanisms of earthquakeshave long been used to probe the stress field in continental
crust (Wallace, 1951; Bott,1959; McKenzie, 1969). This seismological data is
considered as an excellent source ofinformation on stress directions and relative stress
magnitudes in the crust which alsogives an clear picture of the present-day stress
field.
383
)LJ7KHFODVVLILFDWLRQVFKHPHRIVWUHVVLQWKH(DUWK¶VFUXVWDIWHU$QGHUVRQon
the left and corresponding faulting regimes in the right.
Stress tensor is describe as the concentration of the internal forces considering

not only their magnitude but also the size of the area on which they act (i.e., a force
divided by an area that is a stress (F/A)) (Ramsay and Lisle, 2000; and Parry, 2004).
It is related to the familiar concept of a force in a reasonably straight forward way.
Hence the forces acting on elements of an elastic solid can be treated with the concept
of stress vector and stress tensor. The stress tensor (ᆓij), the full specification of the
state of stress at a point, is made up of six independent components corresponding to
three traction vectors each acts on a surface perpendicular to x, y, and z coordinate
axes. These terms represent the complete internal force distribution at a point.
384
The diagonal terms of stress tensor are called normal stresses (three components) and
the off-diagonal terms are called shear stresses (six components).
Components of stresses on a Fault plane
It is considerable interest to know the direction of the shear stress acts as

generally assumed that the shear stress derives the potential slip on the fault plane. To
this, one consider a fault plane L which can defined by a unit vector n = (n1, n2,n3
normal to it, and a, the stress vector acting on that plane and represent the state of
stress on the rock volume. Performing all calculations in the principal stress system,
we can easily obtain the total traction acting on the fault surface as:
ti =ᆓij n = 1
Additionally, the traction vector ti can be resolved into shear and normal
components. The normal stress component ĲQscalar) acting in the direction of n, and
causes either tensile (opening) or compressive (shortening) on the weakness plane as
function of its sign. In engineering and material science, the convention is that
positive stresses are tensional, and compressional stresses are negative. The other one
is the shear stress component ĲV acting along the plane itself (parallel to the fault
plane). The two components are perpendicular to each other and related by this
relation:
t= ĲQ + ĲV2
To obtain the normal stress acting on the considered plane, we project the stresses of
equations (3) onto the normal n to get:
ĲQ WLQQ >ıQQ@Q
385
The shear traction ĲVQı) is found by subtracting the normal traction from the total
traction:
ĲV ıQ->ıQQ@Q
:KHUHĲVQıLVWKHWDQJHQWLDOWUDFWLRQRQWKHIDXOWSlane with unit normal n

GXHWRWKHGHYLDWRULFVWUHVVWHQVRUıLQZKHUHWKHGHYLDWRULFVWUHVVLVFRQVLGHUWREHD
result of tectonic forces as it causes earthquake faulting and seismic wave propagation
effects like anisotropy. To find best the deviatoric stress tensor, only orientation of the
slip with respect to the orientation of the fault is consider (Michael, 1984).
The Right Dihedron and rotational optimization method

The Right Dihedron method was introduced by Angelier & Mechler (1977) as
a JUDSKLFDO PHWKRGIRUWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKHUDQJHRISRVVLEOHRULHQWDWLRQV RIı
DQG ı3 stress axes in fault analysis. These methods developments include (1) the
estimation of the stress ratio R, (2) the complementary use of tension and compression
fractures and (3) the application of the a compatibility test for data selection and
subset determination using a counting deviation. The Right Dihedron method is
typically designed for building initial data subsets from the raw data set, and for
making a first estimation of the four parameters of the reduced stress tensor. The
Improved Right Dihedron method forms a separate module in the TENSOR program
(Delvaux and Sperner (2003).
The Right Dihedron method is based on a reference grid of orientations

predetermined in as a rectangular grid on the stereonet in lower hemisphere Schmidt
projection. For all fault-slip data, compressional and extensional quadrants are
determined according to the orientation of the fault plane and the slip line and the
sense of movement. These quadrants are plotted on the reference grid and all
orientations of the grid falling in the extensional quadrants are given a counting value
of 100% while those falling in the compressional quadrants are assigned 0%. This
procedure is repeated for all fault-slip data. The counting values are summed up and
divided by the number of faults analyzed. The grid of counting values for a single
fault defines its characteristic counting net. The resulting grid of average counting
values for a data subset forms the average counting net for this subset. The possible
386
RULHQWDWLRQVRIıODQGıDUHGHILQHGE\WKHRULHQWDWLRQVLQWKHDYHUDJHFRXQWLQJQHW
that have values of 0% and 100%, respectively.
The stress ratio R, defined as equivalent WR ı- ıı - ıLV RQHRIWKH
four parameters determined in the stress inversion, with the three principal stress axes
ııDQGı
The stress ratio, R controls for any given plane, the direction of shear stress and
determines the geometry of the slip on fault planes (Wallace, 1951; Bott, 1959).
Also, the stress ratio R can be obtained with this relation:
R= (100-sval)/100
where S2val is the counting value of the point on the reference grid nearest to the
orientation of ı This formula is only good valid for large fault populations with a
wide variety of fault plane orientations.
The Improved Right Dihedron method allows us a first estimation of the

orientations of the principal stress axes and of the stress ratio R, and a first filtering of
compatible fault-slip data. The selected fault-slip population and the preliminary
tensor can be used as a starting point in the iterative inversion procedures like the
Rotational Optimization method in the following lines:-
The used Right Dihedron method in combination with the four dimensional
iterative Rotational Optimization method for determining the four parameters of the
reduced stress tensor using the TENSOR program of Delvaux (1993). The improved
version of Right Dihedron method by Delvaux and Spemer (2003) allows not only
obtaining the first estimation of the principal stress axes orientation but also
estimating the stress ratio R and produces the first filtered focal mechanism data set
by application of a compatibility test for data selection and subset determination on
the basis of the counting deviation. These results are used as a starting point in the
Rotational Optimization inversion procedure. This new iterative inversion method is
based on a controlled grid search with rotational optimization of a range of misfit
functions with the purpose of minimizing the misfit function. It allows restrictions of
the research area during the inversion so that there is no need for the whole grid to be
searched. The misfit is defined as the minimum rotation that is necessary to reconcile
387
the stress tensor with the Observed slip vector direction to all fault plane solutions for
a population of earthquakes.
The stress tensor orientation that provides the average minimum misfit is
assumed to be the best one for a given populations of focal mechanisms. The
TENSOR program (Delvaux and Sperner, 2003) allows to optimize a wide variety of
functions, independently or combined according to the nature of tectonic structure
XVHGPLQLPL]DWLRQRIGHYLDWLRQDQJOHVĮEHWZHHQREVHUYHGDQGWKHRUHWLFDOVOLSVRQ
fault planes; maximization of shear stress magnitude Ĳ on fault planes and shear
joints; minimization of normal stress magnitudeıQ on extensional joints (tension
veins) and maximization of normal stress magnitudeıQ on compressional joints
(cleavage, styloliths).
The TENSOR procedure optimizes the appropriate function by progressive

rotation of the tested tensor around each of his axes, and by testing different values of
R ratio. The amplitude of rotation angles and values of R ratio tested are progressively
reduced until the tensor is stabilized. In fact most stress tensors were computed using
an optimized composite function (F5 in TENSOR), with simultaneous minimization
RIVOLSGHYLDWLRQDQJOHVĮIRUIDXOWSODQHVPD[LPL]DWLRQRIĲon fault planes and shear
MRLQWVDQGPLQLPL]DWLRQRIıQRQH[WHQVLRQMRLQWV7KLVIXQFWLRQKDVEHHQSURYHGYHU\
efficient in paleostress inversion of mixed data sets (Reference). In case of inversion
of earthquake focal Mechanism data this function combines the minimization of the
PLVILWDQJOHĮVOLSGHYLDWLRQDQGWKHPD[LPL]DWLRQRIWKHVKHDUVWUHVVPDJQLWXGHRQ
every fault plane. As a whole the rotational optimization progressively improves the
tensor and selects one focal plane for each mechanism on the basis of the slip
deviation (e.g., Vasseur et al., 1983; Gephart and Forsyth, 1984; Bergerat et al., 1987)
HYHQWXDOO\HOLPLQDWHVIRFDO SODQHV ZKRVHVOLSGHYLDWLRQ ĮLV PRre than the threshold
value of 30°), the value of composite function (the fault plane will be the one with the
smallest value of the composite function the two planes have slip deviation less than
30° ) and internal friction criteria (the instability) for each fault plane (Delvaux and
Sperner, 2003).
388
2. Paleotsunami methodology
2.1. Grain size equations

This following equations of calculate mean size, sorting, Skewness, Kurtosis
according to Folk (1968).
1. "Mean" - is the average grain-size. Several formulas are used in calculating the
mean. The most inclusive graphically derived value is that given by Folk (1968),
According to equations:
Where 16, 50, and 84 represent the size at 16, 50, and 84 percent of the sample by
weight.
2. Sorting is a method of measuring the grain-size variation of a sample by

encompassing the largest parts of the size distribution as measured from a cumulative
curve.
Folk (1968) introduced the "inclusive graphic standard deviation", that is calculated as
follows:
where 84, 16, 95, and 5 represent the phi values at 84, 16, 95, and 5 percentiles.
The classification scale for sorting:
<0.350: very well sorted;
0.35-0.500: well sorted;
0.5-0.710: moderately well sorted;
0.71-1.00: moderately sorted;
1.00-2.00: poorly sorted;
2.00-4.00: very poorly sorted;
> 4.00: extremely poorly sorted.
389
3. Skewness is a measures the degree to which a cumulative curve approaches
symmetry. Two samples may have the same average grain size and sorting but may be
quite different to their degrees of symmetry.
Folk's (1968) "inclusive graphic skewness is determined by the equation:
Where 5, 16, 50, 84,95 represent the size at 5, 16, 50, 84,95 percent of the sample by
weight
Symmetrical curves have a skewness equal to 0.00; those with a large proportion of
fine material are positively skewed; those with a large proportion of coarse material
are negatively skewed. A verbal classification for skewness suggested by Folk (1968)
includes:
+0.10 to -0.10 as nearly symmetrical;
-0.10 to -0.30 as coarse-skewed;
-0.30 to -1.00 as strongly coarse-skewed.
4. Kurtosis is a measure of "peakedness" in a curve. Folk's (1968) formula for kurtosis

is:
where the phi values represent the same percentages as those for Skewness. A normal
Gaussian distribution has a kurtosis of 1.00 which is a curve with the sorting in the
tails equal to the sorting in the central portion. If a sample curve is better sorted in the
central part than in the tails, the curve is said to be excessively peaked, or leptokurtic;
if the sample curve is better sorted in the tails than in the central portion, the curve is
flat peaked or platykurtic. For normal curves = 1.00, leptokurtic curves have >1.00,
and platykurtic curves have <1.00.
2.2. X-ray diffraction theory

Single wavelength incidents to the specimen surface and detector measure the
intensity of the diffracted beam. The beam incident angle changes continuously thus a
spectrum of diffraction intensity versus the angle between incident and diffraction
390
beam is produced. This spectrum is compared with database containing over 60,000
diffraction spectra of known crystalline substances. Diffractometer functions are the
x-ray diffraction detecting from material and the measuring of diffraction intensity.
Fig. 4 illustrated the geometrical arrangement of X-ray source, specimen and detector.
The X-ray radiation generated by an X-ray tube passes through special slits,
which collimate the X-ray beam. These slits are commonly used in the diffractometer.
They are made from a set of closely spaced thin metal plates parallel to plane to
prevent beam divergence in the director perpendicular to the figure plane.
Fig. 4 The geometrical arrangement of an X-ray source, specimen, and detector.
A divergent X-ray beam passing through the slits strikes the specimen. X-rays
are diffracted by the specimen and form a convergent beam at receiving slits before
they enter a detector. The diffracted X-ray beam needs to pass through a
monochromatic filter (or a monochromator) before being received by a detector.
Relative movements among the X-ray tube, specimen and the detector ensure the
recording of diffraction intensity in a range of 2ș. The ș angle is not the angle
between the incident beam and specimen surface; rather it is the angle between the
incident beam and the crystallographic plane that generates diffraction.
Diffractometers can have various types of geometric arrangements to enable
collection of X-ray data.
The technique of thin film X-ray diffractometry uses a special optical
arrangement for detecting the crystal structure of thin films and coatings on a
substrate. The incident beam is directed to the specimen at a small glancing angle
391
XVXDOO\ ƕDQGWKH JODQFLQJDQJOHLV IL[HGGXULQJRSHUDWLRQ DQGRQO\ WKHGHWHFWRU
rotates to obtain the diffraction signals as illustrated in figure 16. Thin film X-ray
diffractometry requires a parallel incident beam, not a divergent beam as in regular
diffractometry. Also, a monochromator is placed in the optical path between the X-ray
tube and the specimen, not between the specimen and the detector. The small glancing
angle of the incident beam ensures that sufficient diffraction signals come from a thin
film or a coating layer instead of the substrate.
Fig.5 Optical arrangement for thin film diffractometry
3. Tsunami definition and shallow water equation

This items and equations are described from Physics of tsunamis book Boris Levin et
al., 2009
The tsunami name originates from two Japanese words translated together as a
µZDYHLQWKHKDUERXU7KHRWKHUWHUPVZKLFKXVHGIURPVRPHWLPHDJRVXFKDVµKLJK-
WLGHZDYH¶DQGµVHLVPLFVHDZDYH¶DQGµVHDTXDNH¶
Most tsunamis are caused by submarine earthquakes but not all submarine
earthquakes cause tsunamis. Movement on the fault must have a vertical component
that generates sufficient displacement to set a tsunami running. Submarine explosions,
caldera collapse and massive pyroclastic flows can all cause sufficient displacement
of water to generate a tsunami. Underwater landslides or coastal landslides that fall
into the ocean can displace enough water to create a tsunami. Sometimes the
landslides are caused by earthquakes. Large meteorites have a high probability of
landing in the ocean and causing a tsunami given that about two thirds of the surface
of the Earth is covered by water.
392
A tsunami inundation simulation is based on the nonlinear long wave theory
namely, the shallow water theory²which considers ocean bottom friction (Madder,
2004). The propagation velocity of long waves a sea water of depth H is determined
by the formula v= where g is the fall acceleration of gravity. The tsunami
depends on the wave propagation velocity on the sea depth of these waves which is
sensitive to the shape of the sea-floor (i.e bathymetery data). Effects peculiar to
tsunamis include the capture of wave energy both by underwater ridges and by the
shelf, focusing and defocusing exhibited when waves propagate above underwater
elevations and depressions. The irregularities of the sea-floor lead to the scattering of
tsunami waves.
The propagation velocity of gravitational waves does not depend only on the
depth, but on the wavelength. The formula presented above for the velocity of long
waves is the limit case (for Ȝ +RIWKHPRUHJHQHUDOH[SUHVVLRQ
v= , where k = 2ʌ/Ȝ
The tsunami wave amplitude increases by its arrival to the coast and this depend
on the relief of the sea-floor. A decrease in the water depth leads to a decrease in the
wave propagation velocity and, consequently, to compression of the wave packet in
space and an increase of its amplitude. In the case of catastrophic tsunamis, the run-up
height reaches 10±30 m, while the wave is capable of inland inundation (runin) of 3±5
km from the coastline. A scheme of the tsunami onshore run-up, explaining the main
parameters of this process, is shown in Fig. 6. The maximum wave height can be
achieved at the shoreline, at the inundation boundary or at any point in between them.
.The process of the simulation process of the tsunami waves applied in this study are
shown in Fig.7.
393
Fig.6 Scheme of tsunami onshore run-up (UNESCO-IOC (2006))
Fig.7 sketch show the simulation process

The linear long wave theory and the nonlinear long wave theory are used as
standards for estimating a tsunami in 50-meter or deeper seas and shallower seas,
respectively. The long-wave theory consists of the continuity equation found in the
principle of mass conservation and the momentum equation found in the principle of
momentum conservation. Both of these involve the following governing equations for
an integration model that can be found by performing integration from the bottom of
the water to the water surface in a vertical direction.
394
Continuity equation
Momentum equation
K means changes in the water level from the still-water level. D is the total
water depth from the bottom to the surface. g is the acceleration of gravity. n is
0DQQLQJ¶VURXJKQHVVFRHIILFLHQW01UHSUHVHQWVWKHGLVFKDUJHIOX[LQ the direction
of x,y. Horizontal flow velocity (u,v) , can be integrated from the bottom of the water
(h) to the water surface (K ) as the following:
M=u(h+K)=uD, N=v(h+K)=vD
This equation assumes that horizontal flow velocity is uniformly distributed in
a vertical direction.
Near-field tsunamis concern a 1,000-kilometer by 1,000-kilometer or smaller
sea area. Using the rectangular coordinate system is sufficient for this. However, far-
field tsunamis propagating over a long distance in the Pacific Ocean as example
require the use of the governing equation with the following polar coordinate system.
This type of tsunami also requires the dispersion term and Coriolis Effect to be
considered as the following equations:-
395
M=u(h+K)=uD, N=v(h+K)=vD
In this equation, O is longitude, T is latitude, and M and N are the discharge
fluxes in the directions of O and T UHVSHFWLYHO\ 5 LV WKH HDUWK¶V UDGLXV I LV WKH
Coriolis coefficient ( f 2ZsinT ), and Z is the anguODUYHORFLW\RIWKHHDUWK¶VURWDWLRQ
(7.29×10-5rad/s)
References
1. Seismotectonic methodology
Aki, K. and Richards, P.G., (1980). Analysis of seismological data. Quantitative

Seismology. Theory of Methods .
Anderson EM (1951). The dynamics of faulting and dyke formation with

applications to Britain, published in New York , Hafner 1972. PP 206.
Angelier, J. & Mechlier, P. (1977). Sur une methode graphique de recherche des
contraintes principales egalement utilisable en tectonique et en seismologie : la
methode des diedres droits. Bulletin de la Societe Geologiquede France, Vol. 7, no.19,
p.1309-1318.
Bergerat, F., (1987). Stress fields in the European platform at the time of Africa-
Eurasian collision, Tectonics, Vol.61 no.2. p. 99-132.
Bott, M. H. P. (1959). The mechanism of oblique-slip faulting. Geological Magazine,

Vol.96, p. 109-117.
Cronin, V.S., and Sverdrup, K.A., (1998), Preliminary assessment of the seismicity
of the Malibu Coast Fault Zone, southern California, and related of philosophy and
practice, in Welby, C.W., and Growan, M.E.(editors), A Paradox of power--voices of
warning and Reason in the Geosciences: Geological Society of America, Reviews in
Engineering Geology, p.123-155.
Delvaux, D., Hanon, M., (1993). Neotectonics of the Mbeya area, SW Tanzania.
Mus. roy. Afr. centr., Tervuren (Belg.), Dépt. Géol. Min., Rapp. ann. 991±1992, p.87±
97.
Delvaux, D., Sperner, B., (2003). Stress tensor inversion from fault kinematic
indicators and focal mechanism data: the TENSOR program. In: Nieuwland, D. (Ed.),
396
New Insights into Structural Interpretation and Modelling: Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec.
Publ.,vol. 212, pp. 75±100.
Gephart, J. W., and D. W. Forsyth, (1984). An Improved Method for Determining

the Regional Stress Tensor Using Earthquake Focal Mechanism Data - Application to
the San-Fernando Earthquake Sequence, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 89, p. 9305-9320 .
.
Hardebeck JL, Michael AJ (2006) Damped regional-scale stress inversions:
methodology and examples for southern California and the Coalinga aftershock
sequence. J Geophys Res 111, B11310.
J.G. Ramsay and R.J. Lisle, (2000). The techniques of modern structural geology,
volume 3: Applications of continuum mechanics in structural geology: Academic
Press, London, pp.1060 ISBN 0-12-576923-7.
Mckenzie, D.P., (1969). The relation between fault plane solutions for earthquakes
and the directions of principal stresses. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. Vol.59, p. 591±601.
Michael, A. J., (1984). Determination of stress from slip data: Faults and folds, J.
Geophys. Res., Vol.89, no. 11, p.517-11,526.
Parry, R H G , (2004), Mohr circles, stress paths and geotectonics, spon

Press,London, and New York, pp.263, 2nd ed.
Simpson RW 4XDQWLI\LQJ $QGHUVRQ¶V IDXOW W\SHV - *HRSK\V 5HV

102:17909±17919.
Sykes, L., (1967). Mechanism of earthquakes and nature of faulting on the mid ocean
ridges: journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.72, p.2131-2153.
Vasseur, G., Etchecopar, A., Philip, H., (1983). Stress state inferred from multiple
focal mechanisms. Ann. Geophys. Vol.1, p. 291±298.
Wallace RE (1951). Geometry of shearing stress and relation to faulting. J Geol

Vol.59, p.118±130. doi:10.1086/ 625831.
2. Paleotsunami methodology
Folk, R.L., 1968, Petrology of sedimentary rocks, 170 pp, Hemphill's Book Store, in
Austin, Texas).
397
3. Tsunami definition and shallow water equation
Levin, B.W. and Nosov, M., (2009). Physics of tsunamis (Vol. 327). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Madder, C. L. (2004). Numerical Modeling of Water Waves, Second ed. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 288pp.
398
1
2 APPENDIX G
5 Paleotsunami deposits along the coast of Egypt correlate with

6 historical earthquake records of eastern Mediterranean
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 A. Salama, (1, 2, *), M. Meghraoui (1**), M. El Gabry (2, *),
14 S. Maouche (3, *), H. Hussein (2, *), and I. Korrat (4)
15
16
17
18
1.
19 EOST-IPGS - CNRS - UMR 7516, Strasbourg, France
2.
20 NRIAG, 11421 Helwan, Egypt
3.
21 CRAAG, Bouzareah, Algeria
4.
22 Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
23
24 * Also at North Africa Group for Earthquakes and Tsunami Studies (NAGET), Ne t40/OEA ICTP, Italy
25
26 **Corresponding author
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Submitted to the Journal of African Earth Sciences

35 September 2017
36
37 Abstract.
38
39 We study sedimentary record of past tsunamis along the coastal area west of Alexandria (NW
40 Egypt) taking into account the reported historical inundations and related major earthquakes
41 in the east Mediterranean. The two selected sites at Kefr Saber (~32-km west of Marsa-
42 Matrouh city) and ~10 km northwest of El Alamein village are coastal lagoons protected by 2
43 to 30-m-high dunes parallel to the shoreline. Field investigations include: 1) Coastal
44 geomorphology along estuaries, wedge-protected and dune-protected lagoons, and 2)
45 identification of paleotsunamis deposits and their spatial distribution using trenching and
46 coring. Five trenches (1.5-m-depth) at Kefr Saber and twelve cores (1 to 2.5-m-depth) at El
47 Alamein are presented with detailed logging including Xrays, grain size and sorting, total
48 organic and inorganic matter, bulk mineralogy, magnetic susceptibility and radiocarbon
49 dating necessary for the identification of tsunamis records. The stratigraphic succession
50 generally of low energy marine and alluvial deposits includes intercalated high-energy
51 deposits made of mixed sand, gravel and broken shells interpreted as catastrophic layers
52 correlated with tsunami deposits. A total of 50 samples of organic deposits, shells and
53 charcoal fragments were collected from both sites, among which 20 samples have been dated.
54 Dated charcoal and shells in deposits above and below the catastrophic layers allow the
55 correlation with the 24 June 1870 (Mw 7.5), 8 August 1303 (Mw ~8) and 21 July 365 (Mw 8
56 ± 8.5), major earthquakes that generated major tsunamis with the inundation of Alexandria
57 and northern Egypt. Major tsunamigenic seismic sources being along the Hellenic subduction
58 zone, the modelling of wave propagation and computed wave heights is consistent with
59 tsunami records in sedimentary layers along the northern coast of Egypt. Our study of
60 paleotsunami deposits documents the size and recurrence of past catastrophes and points out
61 the potential of tsunami hazard over the Egyptian shoreline and the east Mediterranean
62 regions.
63
64 Key words: paleotsunami, coring, trenching, coastal geomorphology, northern Egypt
65
66 1. Introduction:
67 Egypt has a well-documented catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis preserved in a
68 variety of sources due to its long history of civilization. Original documents and archives are
69 considered as the principle sources of macroseismic data for major historical earthquakes and
70 tsunamis (Poirier and Taher, 1980; Maamoun et al., 1984); Ambraseys et al., 1994, 2009;
71 Guidoboni et al., 1994, 2005; Soloviev et al. 2000). The catalogue reports that coastal cities of
72 northern Egypt have experienced tsunamis inducing runup waves and inundations with severe
73 damage (Ambraseys, 2009). While past tsunamis are well documented historically, it appears
74 that there is a lack of holistic investigations for tsunami deposits along the Mediterranean
75 coastlines. The coastal geomorphology with low-level topography, dunes and lagoons along
76 the Mediterranean coastline of northern Egypt constitutes an ideal natural environment for the
77 geological record of past tsunamis.
78 The Eastern Mediterranean area experienced large earthquakes that can be generally
79 described in the frame of the convergence between the Eurasian and African plates (Taymaz
80 et al., 2004). Major historical tsunamis in the eastern Mediterranean region that affected
81 northern Egypt are triggered by large earthquakes (Papadopoulos et al., 2014) but the
82 possibility of landslide tsunami associated with local earthquakes (El-Sayed et al., 2004) may
83 also exist. Yalciner et al. (2014) estimated that up to 500 km3 landslide volume, with wave
84 height ranging from 0.4 to 4 m, might have taken place offshore the Nile Delta. However, the
85 effects of landslide tsunami are limited to the nearby coastline as shown by the recent
86 examples of landslide tsunamis in the Mediterranean associated with the eruption of
87 Stromboli volcanic eruption of 30 December 2002 (Tinti et al., 2005).
88
89
90 Figure 1: Seismicity (instrumental with M> 5.5) and main tectonic framework of the east
91 Mediterranean regions. Black boxes indicate the paleoseismic sites of Kefr Saber and El
92 Alamein east of the Nile delta. The major historical earthquakes (blue box) of AD 365 (Mw 8
93 ± 8.5), AD 1303 (Mw ~8) and AD 1870 (Mw > 7 ± 7.5) are located along the Hellenic
94 subduction zone according to Guidoboni et al. (1994), Stiros (2001) and Ambraseys (2009).
95 Focal mechanisms are CMT-Harvard.
96
97 Tsunami research of the past 20 years has led to the discovery of tsunami deposits
98 dating back to thousands of years. For instance, more than 6 soil levels were identified buried
99 below catastrophic sand sheet deposits at Puget Sound coastline (west Washington, USA) due
100 to tsunamis in the past 7000 years (Atwater, 1987). Nanayama et al. (2003) recognized major
101 tsunamis along the eastern coast of Hokkaido (northern Japan) due to extensive coastal
102 inundation and repeated sand sheet layers several kilometers inland; the repetition of this layer
103 evidenced a 500-year tsunami cycle in the period between 2000 and 7000 years BP. Along the
104 coast of South Andaman Island (India), Malik et al. (2011) studied coastal deposits in
105 trenches and identified three historical tsunamis during the past 1000 years comparable to the
106 2004 Sumatra earthquake tsunami. In the Mediterranean, De Martini et al. (2012) identified
107 two tsunamis deposits during the first millennium BC and another one in 650-770 AD and
108 estimated 385 year average recurrence interval for strong tsunamis along the eastern coast of
109 Sicily (Italy).
110 In this paper, we investigate the paleotsunami deposits in northern coast of Egypt and
111 their correlation with the historical tsunami catalogue of the Eastern Mediterranean. Using
112 coastal geomorphology with trenching and coring, we examine the geological evidence of
113 tsunami deposits using geochemical analysis, magnetic susceptibility and radiocarbon dating
114 to identify the tsunamis records. The obtained results and inferred size of past tsunamis are
115 compared to model wave heights propagation associated with major earthquakes. Finally, we
116 discuss the impact of past tsunamis their dating and correlation with major tsunamigenic
117 earthquakes of the Hellenic and Cyprus subduction zone.
118
119 2. Major historical tsunamis of the Mediterranean coast of Egypt
120 Although the tsunamis catalogue of Egypt is not completed yet, Guidoboni et al.
121 (1994, 2005) and Ambraseys (2009) report several large historical earthquakes with tsunamis
122 that caused damage in coastal Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean region (Table 1). Among
123 these events, the tsunamis of 21 July 365, 8 August 1303 and 24 June 1870 caused severe
124 damage to Alexandria city as well as the Mediterranean coast of Greece, Sicily, Libya,
125 Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. These three tsunami events are correlated with the
126 major earthquakes in the Hellenic and Cyprus subduction zones (Papadopoulos et al., 2014).
127
Estimated
Date Epicentre Comment Reference
Magnitude
Stiros and Drakos,
8.3 ± 8.5 Tsunami northern 2006; Shaw et al.,
21 July 365 Western Crete
(Mw) Egypt 2008,
Hamouda 2009
Tsunami eastern Sieberg, 1932,
18 Jan. 746 Dead Sea Fault 7.5 (M)
Medit. Ambraseys, 1962
Tsunami in
881 - 882 Palestine ? Alexandria & Galanopoulos A., 1957
Palestine
Jordan Valley Tsunami northern
4 Jan. 1033 7.4 (M) Ambraseys, 1962
Fault Egypt
Waves in Lebanon
Northern Ambraseys, 1962,
18 Jan. 1068 6.9 (M) Until northern
Lebanon Soloviev et al., 2000
Egypt
Abu al-Fida 1329,
Karpathos & >8-m-high wave in
8 Aug. 1303 8 (M) Ambraseys 2009,
Rhodos islands Alexandria
Hamouda 2006
Inundation in Ben-Menahem, 1979,
24 June 1870 Hellenic Arc ML 7.2
Alexandria harbour Soloviev et al., 2000
128
129 Table 1: Major earthquakes of the eastern Mediterranean with tsunami wave records in
130 northern Egypt. Estimated magnitudes are given in Mw when calculated and in M when
131 estimated.
132
133 Early in the morning of 21 July 365, an earthquake with estimated magnitude ~Mw 8-
134 8.5 located offshore West of Crete generated a major tsunami that affected the eastern
135 Mediterranean coastal regions (Ambraseys et al., 1994; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Stiros, 2001;
136 Shaw et al., 2008). A contemporaneous account from the Roman historian Ammianus
137 Marcellinus (born 325 ± GLHG Fௗ ± 400; Guidoboni et al., 1994) reports the sudden
138 retreat of the sea and tKHRFFXUUHQFHRID³JLJDQWLF´ZDYHLQODQG with inundation and damage
139 to the Alexandria harbour and city with ships lifted inland on house roofs; the estimated wave
140 height of this tsunami was calculated by Hamouda (2009) to be larger than 8 m in Alexandria.
141 On 8 August 1303 a major earthquake with magnitude ~Mw 8 located in between
142 Crete and Rhodos islands generated a tsunami that greatly damaged the coastal cities of the
143 eastern Mediterranean (Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005; Ambraseys, 2009). The
144 contemporaneous Arabic source of Abu-El Fida (1329) report that the Alexandria city and
145 Nile delta were flooded and many houses were damaged in Cairo and northern Egypt. In
146 Alexandria, part of the city walls collapsed, the famous light houses was destroyed and some
147 ships were torn apart carried up inland due to the tsunami waves (Abu-El Fida, 1329). .
148 On 24 June 1870 a large earthquake affected many places of the eastern Mediterranean
149 region and was felt in Alexandria at around 18 h with no damage in the city but with slight
150 damage in Cairo (Coumbary, 1870; Ambraseys, 2009). In Alexandria coastline and Nile
151 Delta, the sea wave flooded the quays of ports and inland fields.
152 Among these three reported earthquakes, it appears that the AD 365 and AD 1303 can
153 EH FODVVLILHG DV YHU\ ODUJH HDUWKTXDNHV ZLWK 0Z WKDW JHQHUDWHG PDMRU WVXQDPLV ZLWK
154 basin-wide impacts, while the 1870 earthquake may be of a lower magnitude (Mw ~7 ± 7.5;
155 Soloviev, 2000). However, all studies of the three historical earthquakes refer to tsunami
156 waves with inundation in Alexandria and coastlines of northern Egypt and therefore with the
157 potential of tsunamis record in sedimentary deposits.
158
159 3. Coastal geomorphology and site selection of paleotsunami records
160 The northwest Mediterranean coast of Egypt forms the northern extremity of the
161 Miocene Marmarica homoclinal limestone plateau, which extends west of Alexandria for
162 about 500 km acting as a major catchment area feeding the drainage system (Figure 1). The
163 plateau runs from the Qattara Depression southward to the piedmont plain northward with
164 various elevations reaching ~100 m at Marsa Matrouh escarpment. The landform
165 geomorphology of the study area is characterized by the 60-m-high northern plateau that
166 includes ridges, sand dunes, lagoons, and rocky plains within a 20-km-wide strip along the
167 coastline (Fig 1). The rocks correspond to a veneer of carbonate sand mostly composed of
168 carbonate oolitic grains, entirely composed of Pleistocene limestone ridges (Frihy et al.,
169 2010).
170 Figure 2: Location of trenches and core sites at (a) Kefr Saber and (b) El Alamein (see also
171 Figure 1).
172
173 Coastal dune-ridges constitute an outstanding land feature at several locations parallel
174 to the shoreline and protect inner lagoons from the sea. These dunes are completely weathered
175 where the headlands exist (Abbas et al., 2008). The 2 to 30-m-high coastal beach-dune ridge
176 mainly composed of oolitic and biogenic calcareous sand separates coastal lagoons and
177 sabkhas (salt lake) from the sea, the beach dunes; the beach-dune ridge is developed along the
178 receding Quaternary shorelines and embayment of the Mediterranean Sea (Hassouba, 1995).
179 The lagoons with flat depressions separated from the sea by the coastal dunes (with different
180 heights and sometimes with seawater oultlets) are designated sites that may record past
181 tsunami deposits.
182 The selected sites were chosen taking into account geomorphological and topographic
183 setting, the accumulation of boulders as witness of past tsunami events along the coast (Shah-
184 Hosseini et al., 2016) and the accessibility in order to avoid urbanization and artificial soil
185 reworking. Suitable sites for trenching and coring are therefore located in dry lagoons (during
186 summer season) protected from the sea by 2 to 30-m-high sand dunes. Two sites with ~200
187 km apart have met the selection criteria for site investigation (Figs. 1 and 2): 1) Kefr Saber
188 located at ~32-km west of Marsa-Matrouh city, and 2) El Alamein site at ~10 km northwest
189 of El Alamein city. Five trenches were dug at Kefr Saber (Fig. 2a), and 12 cores were
190 performed at the Alamein site (Fig. 2b).
191
192
193 Figure 3: a) Kefr Saber trench size, (b) location in lagoon depression south of dune ridge,
194 and (c) description of sedimentary layers of trench P 4 with carbon dating sampling (yellow
195 flag); the graduated vertical ruler indicates 10 cm scale.
196
197
198 4. Selected sites and used methods for paleotsunami investigations
199 The trench sizes are ~2 x 1 meter with ~1.5-m-depth and all trench walls exposed fine-
200 grained sedimentary layers and were logged in details. The maximum core depth is ~2.6 m
201 and their distribution in the lagoons was planned to occupy an area from the depression
202 (depo-center) to the edge close to the outlet of seawater in order to observe any thickness
203 variation of tsunami layers.
204 The core tubes were split in half lengthwise, photographed using both normal and
205 ultra-violet lightning accompanied by detail description of textures and sedimentary
206 structures. The X-ray scanning was performed immediately after core opening and cores were
207 sent to the laboratory of the National Institute of Geophysics and Astronomy (NRIAG, Cairo)
208 for sampling and further analysis. The magnetic susceptibility measurements were operated
209 along cores and samples were collected for radiocarbon dating, physical, chemical and
210 organic matter analyses.
211
212
213 Figure 4: a) Core 1 photography, X-ray scanning, lithology log, magnetic susceptibility,
214 mean grain size, sediment sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy.
215 The arrows show the high values of each measurement that may correlate with tsunami
216 deposits.
217
218 The magnetic susceptibility was measured for cores at the NRIAG Rock Magnetism
219 laboratory then corrected against air by using Bartington compatible software. 120 samples
220 were collected from cores then analyzed for grain size analysis; X-ray diffraction using
221 Philips PW 1730. The total organic and inorganic measurements were carried out at the
222 laboratory of Central Metallurgical Research & Devolpment Institute (CMRDI) Center of
223 Eltebbin (Egypt). Statistics of the grain-size distribution were calculated using Folk equations
224 (1968) to calculate mean size and sorting of the sediments along the cores.
225 The Radiocarbon dating of samples were carried out in three laboratories (Poznan
226 laboratory - Poland, CIRAM in Bordeaux, France and Beta Analytical laboratory, USA) to
227 ensure coherency and quality of results (see Tables 2 a and b). The collected samples were
228 made of: charcoal, bones, gastropods, shells and organic matter. The radiocarbon dating
229 results of charcoal and organic matter were calibrated using a recent calibration curve
230 (Reymer et al., 2013) and Oxcal software for the probability density function of each sample
231 aJHZLWKıXQFHUWDLQW\%URQN-Ramsay, 2009); furthermore the gastropods and shells were
232 corrected against reservoir effects.
233
234
235 Figure 4: b) Core 9 photography, X-ray scanning, lithology log, magnetic susceptibility,
236 mean grain size, sediment sorting, total organic and inorganic matter and bulk mineralogy.
237 The arrows show the high values of each measurement that may correlate with tsunami
238 deposits.(Similar illustrations of cores 2 to 12 are in supplemental materials).
239
240 5. Description of trenches and cores sedimentary layers
241 The selected sites revealed a succession of sedimentary units typical of lagoon
242 deposits with fine strata made of a mix of fine gravel, sand, silt and clay. At both Kefr Saber
243 and El Alamein sites, trenches and cores present comparable soft sediment content and
244 stratigraphy, but with some differences due to their distance from the shore, situation in
245 lagoons and with regards to the dune heights.
246 Trenches at Kefr Saber: Trenches P1, P2, P3 and P4 have quite similar sedimentary
247 succession with fine-grained mostly alluvial deposits made of sandy-silty layers with mixed
248 coarse and white fine sand with broken shells of marine origin (Fig. 3 and trench logs in
249 supplemental material S1). A layer with white mixed sand, gravel and broken shells with
250 variable 2 to 15 cm thickness is found at 30 ± 50 cm depth in P1, P2, P3 and P4. The white
251 sandy layer is deeper (larger than 30 cm) in trench P3 and P4 located in the lagoon depo-
252 center. Trench P5 which is close to the dunes and shoreline show a succession of coarse and
253 fine sand and about 30 to 40 cm thick mixed with pebbles. The layer characterized by high-
254 energy sedimentary deposits is interpreted as of tsunami origin.
255 Two charcoal samples collected in Trench P1 at 35 cm and 53 cm depth display
256 modern age (younger than 1650 AD) and 39000-38250 BC, respectively. In Trench P2, two
257 other charcoal samples collected at 73 cm and 100 cm depth and both below the tsunami layer
258 1 (Fig.S1-b) indicate 50 - 70 AD and 5300-5070 BC, respectively (see also Table 2a). In
259 Trench P4, four collected charcoal samples at 15 cm, 25 cm, 40 cm and 61 cm depth reveal
260 modern ages (younger than 1650 AD). A fifth charcoal sample located at 60 cm depth
261 provides 17200- 15900 BC. In Trench P5, four charcoal samples are collected with the
262 uppermost located at 12 cm depth is dated at 360 - 50 BC, the second sample at 17 cm depth
263 show 30- 180 AD, the third, and fourth charcoal samples found at 33 cm and 37 cm depth are
264 dated at 350 - 1050 BC and 2400 - 4000 BC, respectively.
265 Although the sedimentary deposits in trenches at Kefr Saber and related modern,
266 young and old dates may indicate reworking, the well identified mixed coarse and fine white
267 sand with broken shells of marine origin at ~ 30 - 73 cm depth may well be correlated with
268 the tsunami deposits of the 21 July 365 earthquake. Furthermore, the radiocarbon calibrated
269 date of shells (Dendropoma) founds in boulders at Kefr Sabr provides 940-1446 AD while
270 another sample in Ras El Hekma (about 100 km east of Kefr Saber) has a calibrated date of
271 6812 -7597 BC. The Dendropoma sample age at Kefr Saber may correlate with the 8 August
272 1303 earthquake and tsunami event that dragged large boulders on the shoreline in agreement
273 with the results of Shah-Hosseini et al. (2016). However, the 1303 event is not recognized in
274 the trenches dug in the nearby lagoon sedimentary deposits.
275
Sample Laboratory Type of Depth
No. Date BP Calibrated. date
name Name samples (m)
1 RHSX Poznan Boulder 8380 ± 40 BP 7320 - 7550 BC
2 KSB2S2 Poznan Dendroma Boulder 890 ± 30 BP 1030 ± 1220 AD
TSU P1
3 Poznan Charcoal 35 110.14±0.3 BP Modern
S07B
TSU P1
4 CIRAM Charcoal 53 40560 BP 39000-38250 BC
S09B
5 TSU P3S2 CIRAM charcoal 73 2000 BP 50-70 AD
6 TSU P3S3 CIRAM Charcoal 100 6240 BP 5300 ± 5070 BC
7 TSU P3 S2 Poznan Charcoal 72 1075 ± 30 BP 890 ± 1020 AD
17200 ± 15900
11 TSU P4 S5 Poznan Charcoal 60 15490 ± 70 BP
BC
101.42 ± 0.68
12 TSU P4 S6 Poznan Charcoal 25 1700 ± 1920 AD
BP
13 TSU P5S1 Poznan Charcoal 12 2145 ± 30 BP 360 ± 50BC
4560 ± 300
14 TSU P5S2 Poznan Charcoal 37 4000 ± 2400 BC
BP
15 TSU P5S3 Poznan Charcoal 17 2060 ± 35 BP 180 ± 30 AD
276
277 Table 2 a: Radiocarbon dating samples and calibrate age at Kefr Saber site using OxCal
278 v4.2.4 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2013).
279
280
281 Cores at El Alamein: The 12 cores extend between 1 and 2.6 m depth and except for
282 cores 1 and 9 which are in Figures 4 a and b, all stratigraphic logs are presented in the
283 supplemental material S2. The core descriptions are as following:
284 Core 1: This core is located at ~166 m from the shoreline (Figure 2), east of the study area
285 behind the sand dunes and near the outlet of the seawater. The core depth reached ~2.14 m
286 and the stratigraphic section includes 3 tsunami layers recognized as following (Figure 4 a
287 section 1): The first layer is at ~12.5 cm depth with ~34.5 thick, brown clay sediments with
288 poor sorting, fine gain sediments, with high peak in magnetic susceptibility, rich in organic
289 matter, and X-ray image reflects clear lamination. The second layer at ~70 cm depth has ~5
290 cm thickness, characterized by highly broken shells fragments with extremely bad sorting of
291 sediments granulometry. The third layer at ~75 m depth is ~22 cm thick, pale yellow sand
292 with extremely bad sorting of sediments size, with peak in magnetic susceptibility. The
293 chemical analysis shows the presence of gypsum and minor goethite, and X-ray scanning
294 shows some turbiditic structures in these sediments. A fourth tsunami layer is identified at 158
295 cm (see also Fig. S2-1, section 2). It is characterized by pale brown silt clay, medium to fine,
296 with broken shells fragments and extremely poor sorting, with a clear high peak of magnetic
297 susceptibility.
298
Laboratory Type of Depth Calibrated date
No. Sample name Date BP
Name samples (m) ı
1 core 1/1sa1 Poznan charcoal 40 13430±60 13985-14415 BC
2 core 1/1sa2 Poznan Bone 50 1540±60 403-634 AD
5 core 3/1sa1 Poznan shell 45 33500±600 34218- 37224 BC
6 core 3/1sa2 Poznan bivalve 37 45000±2000 43618 BC
7 core 4/1sa1 Poznan shell 28 31840±350 32887-34447BC
gastropod
8 core 5/1sa3 Poznan 50 446600±1400 442182-448237 BC
+shell
9 core 6/2 sa1 Poznan charcoal 80 125±30 < 1620 AD
11 core 6/1sa9 Poznan coral 60 50000±4000 42776-69225 BC
12 core 7/1sa1 Poznan shell 17 3000±30 293-1113 BC
13 core 9/1sa5 Poznan bivalve 55 40000±800 40521-43169 BC
14 core 10/1sa2 Poznan bone 70 42000±1300 41256-46581 BC
15 core10/1sa3 Poznan shells 20 4515 ±30 2623-3521 BC
Beta
16 core11/2sa1 roots 139 4810±30 2666 - 2817 BC
analytic
Beta
analytic
gastropod
18 core11/2Sa4 Poznan 116 4500±35 2619-3386 BC
+shell
19 core11/2sa6 Poznan gastropod 126 4405±35 2477-3368 BC
Beta
20 core11/2 sa11 shells 152 32500±500 33294-36120 BC
analytic
Beta
21 core 11/2sa2 shell 62 16900±60 17869-18741 BC
analytic
Beta
22 core 11-2 charcoal 180 5020±30 3710-3943 BC
analytic
23 core 11 2_5 Poznan gastropod 121 4360±40 2457-3366 BC
Beta
analytic
Beta broken
27 core 12/2 sa3 117 37940±420 39560 -40811 BC
analytic shell
Beta
28 core 12/2sa4 roots 135 5060±30 3365-4071 BC
analytic
CIRAM
29 E1 A1sa1 charcoal 25 130±20 1680-1908 AD
30 E1 A1sa2 CIRAM charcoal 56 190±20 1661-1931 AD
299
300 Table 2 b: Radiocarbon dating samples and calibrate date in El Alamein site using OxCal
301 v4.2.4 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2013)
302 * CIRAM Lab. science for art cultural heritage , archeology department http://www.ciram-
303 art.com/en/archaeology.html
304 *Poznan Lab. Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poland, email: c.fourteen @radiocarbon.pl
305 http://radiocarbon.pl/index.php?lang=en.
306 *Beta Analytic radiocarbon dating , Miami, Florida, USA http://www.radiocarbon.com/, e-mail:
307 lab@radiocarbon.com
308
309 Two samples were collected for radiocarbon dating from core 1. The first sample is a
310 charcoal fragment at 40 cm depth and has a calibrated date 13985- 14415 BC (Table 2b). This
311 first and uppermost sample is located within a sedimentary unit of tsunami origin
312 characterized by bad sorting, highly broken shells fragments and peak of magnetic
313 susceptibility. The second sample is a rodent bone at 50 cm depth and provides 403 - 603 AD
314 calibrated age which may correspond to a position in between two tsunami deposits in
315 stratigraphic succession 1 and 2 that may be correlated with the tsunami events of 8 August
316 1303 above and 21 July 365 below.
317 Core 2: As shown in Fig. S2 - 1 core 2 is ~90 cm deep located south of core 1 at ~264 m from
318 the shoreline. Two tsunami layers are recognized. The first tsunami layer of brown clay
319 sediments is at ~12.5 cm depth ~12.5 cm thick with extremely bad sorting, corresponding to a
320 small peak at magnetic susceptibility. The layer is rich in organic matter (> 1) comparable
321 with other layers of this core; the geochemical analysis shows minor component of goethite.
322 The second layer is at ~50 cm depth ~15 cm thick, made of yellow sand with silty-clay
323 pockets, rich with broken shells fragments, extremely poor sorting and with peak magnetic
324 suc. It is rich in organic matter comparing to other layer, and the geochemical analysis shows
325 minor component of halite.
326 Two shell (gastropod) samples were collected at 75 cm and 77 cm depth and have
327 calibrated dates 32971 - 34681 and 34362 - 36931 BC, respectively (Table 2b). These two
328 samples are located in the bottom of the tsunami stratigraphic layer 2 (Fig.S2-1). However,
329 their old age may well be due to a reworked sedimentation during the catastrophic tsunami
330 event.
331 Core 3: This core is located at 270 m from the shoreline and the outlet of sea water as shown
332 in Fig. S2 - 3. The first tsunami layer is at ~25 cm depth and corresponds to a 26 cm thick
333 pale brown clay with sorted sediments; it is characterized by highly broken shells fragments
334 and sediments rich in organic matter. The second layer at ~70 cm depth is 17.5 cm thick; it is
335 characterized by white sand with laminations at the top and fine sediments at the bottom, with
336 peak of magnetic susceptibility near zero value, and with high organic matter > 2. The third
337 tsunami layer at 106 cm depth is 32 cm thick, characterized by yellow sand with minor illite
338 and broken shells fragments.
339 Two shell samples were collected for dating at 37 cm and 45 cm depth and show
340 calibrated dates 43618 BC and 34218 - 37224 BC respectively (Fig. S2-2 and Table 2b).
341 These two samples are located within the stratigraphic tsunami layer 2 and may correspond to
342 reworked sediments due to the high energy sedimentation during the catastrophic event.
343 Core 4: It is located at 435 m from the shoreline and shows stratigraphic units characterized
344 by two tsunami layers (Fig. S2 - 4). The first tsunami layer is white sand at ~12.5 cm depth 7
345 cm thick with highly sorted sediments. It also shows high broken shells fragments with
346 organic matter > 2. The third tsunami layer is a 35 cm thick pale yellow sand at ~102 cm
347 depth. It is also characterized by yellow sand with minor amount of illite and gypsum and
348 broken shells fragments.
349 One shell sample collected for dating at 37 cm depth provides a calibrated date 32887
350 - 34447 BC respectively (Table 2b). This sample located in the stratigraphic tsunami layer 1
351 (Fig.S2-3) apparently results from high energy reworked sedimentation during the
352 catastrophic event (Fig. S2-4).
353 Core 5: This is the southernmost core in the El Alamein site at 490 m distance from the
354 shoreline (Fig. S2 - 4). The core reaches 73 cm depth and the sedimentary succession does not
355 show any possible sedimentary catastrophic layer of tsunami origin. According to its content,
356 core 5 may show the limit of inundation area with respect to at least the first and second
357 tsunami layers.
358 One shell (gastropod) sample collected for dating at 50 cm depth provides 442182 -
359 448237 BC calibrated age (Table 2b). The relatively old age of the sample may refer to
360 transportation and reworking due to high current waves during a tsunami event.
361 Core 6: This core is located south of the sand dunes at 320 m from the shoreline. It is
362 characterized by three tsunami layers (Fig. S2 - 5). The first tsunami layer is a pale yellow
363 sand with broken shells fragments at ~5 cm depth and ~24 cm thick with highly sorted
364 sediments rich in organic matter larger than 2.5. The second tsunami layer is at ~58 cm depth
365 ~18.5 cm thick characterized by yellow sand with a minor amount of gypsum and Illite. The
366 third tsunami layer at 130 cm depth ~20 cm thick characterized by white sand with minor
367 amount of goethite and broken shells fragments. It is very rich (larger than 3) in total weight
368 of organic matter.
369
370
371
372 Fig. 5a: Radiocarbon dating calibrated with probability density function (pdf) using Oxcal
373 version 4.2 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2009) and chronology of dated tsunami records in Kefr Saber.
374 Black pdfs refer to the dated samples and red pdfs are simulated dating of three tsunami
375 records. The sedimentary record is correlated with the historical earthquake and tsunami
376 catalogue of the eastern Mediterranean (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Stiros, 2001; Ambraseys,
377 2009).
378
379 Three samples were collected for dating in core 6. The first sample is a gastropod at
380 ~45 cm depth and shows 35002-37441 BC calibrated date. The second and third samples are
381 coral fragments at ~60 cm and ~80 cm depth that show 42776-69225 BC and modern
382 (younger than 1650 AD) calibrated ages, respectively. The first sample is above the
383 stratigraphic tsunami layer 2 while the second sample was within the stratigraphic tsunami
384 layer 2 (Fig S2-7). These samples may result from reworking due to high current waves
385 transport of tsunamis.
386 Core 7: This core was located at 273 m from the shoreline. It characterized by stratigraphic
387 units with soft sediments with three tsunami layers within 120 cm depth (Fig. S2 - 6). The
388 first tsunami layer is brown sand with broken shell fragments at ~14 cm depth 6 cm thick with
389 highly sorted sediments. It is characterized by rich with organic matter > 2 and noticeable
390 peak of magnetic susceptibility and the presence amount of gypsum of swampy environment
391 and minor amount of Illite and goethite. The second tsunami layer at 50 cm depth is 20 cm
392 thick characterized by pale brown clay with pebbles at bottom. The third tsunami layer is at
393 115 cm depth and 15 cm thick characterized by white sand, bad sorting sediments with minor
394 amount of pyrite. One sample of shell only was collected at 17 cm depth for radiocarbon
395 dating and provides 293-1113 BC. This sample predates the 365 AD event.
396
397
398
399
400 Fig. 5b: Radiocarbon dating calibrated with probability density function (pdf) using Oxcal
401 version 4.2 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2009) and chronology of dated tsunami records in El Alamein.
402 Black pdfs refer to the dated samples and red pdfs are simulated dating of three tsunami
403 records. The three sedimentary records are correlated with the historical earthquake and
404 tsunami catalogue of the eastern Mediterranean (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Stiros, 2001;
405 Ambraseys, 2009).
406
407 Core 8: This core is located at 214 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized
408 (Fig. S2 - 7). The first tsunami layer is a pale silty clay at ~14 cm depth 16 cm thick with high
409 organic matter and minor amount of goethite. It is characterized by highly broken shell
410 fragments and rich in organic matter. The second layer at 52 cm depth and 22 cm thick
411 characterized by pale yellow silty-clay, with low peak of magnetic susceptibility and high
412 organic matter >2.5. The third tsunami layer at 128 cm depth is 9 cm thick characterized by
413 pale yellow sand with highly angular gravel sediments, badly sorted and broken shells
414 fragments. No samples were suitable for dating in this core.
415 Core 9: It is located at 130 m from the shore line. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Fig. 4
416 b). The first tsunami layer is white sand at ~16 cm depth and 13 cm thick with high content of
417 organic matter and rip up clasts that appear in X-ray scanning characterized by highly broken
418 shells fragments and rich in organic matter. The second layer at 67 cm depth is 22 cm thick
419 characterized by white sand, with a peak of magnetic susceptibility, high content of organic
420 matter larger than 5. The third tsunami layer at 139 cm depth is 14 cm thick characterized by
421 broken shells fragments and white sand with highly angular sediments that reflect the bad
422 granulometric sorting.
423 Two samples were collected for dating in core 9. The first sample is a gastropod
424 located at 24 cm depth within the tsunami layer 1 provides 1052-1888 BC calibrated age. The
425 second sample at 55 cm depth is a bivalve (lamellibranch) located below the stratigraphic
426 tsunami layer 1 (and above the tsunami layer 2) dated at 40521-43169 BC calibrated age.
427 These samples may have been transported and sedimented in reworked units due to high
428 current waves of tsunami.
429 Core 10: It is located at 245 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Fig.
430 S2 - 8). The first tsunami layer is a brown silty clay at ~19 cm depth 9 cm thick, with highly
431 organic matter and with rip up clasts and lamination that appear in X-ray scanning. It is
432 characterized by high broken shells fragments and rich in organic matter > 4. The second
433 layer at 48 cm depth and 38 cm thick is characterized by brown sand with broken fragments
434 of shells, with peak of magnetic susceptibility, and high organic matter > 1.5 at the bottom of
435 the layer. The third tsunami layer at 101 cm depth is 28 cm thick characterized by pale yellow
436 sand with high organic rich matter and sediments that reflect the bad sorting.
437 Two samples were collected for dating in core 10. The first sample located in the
438 stratigraphic tsunami layer 1 is a shell fragment at 24 cm depth that provides 2623 - 3521 BC
439 calibrated age. The second sample located in the stratigraphic tsunami layer 2 is a rodent bone
440 at 70 cm depth showing 41256-46581 BC calibrated age (Table 2b). Both samples may result
441 from reworked sedimentary units due to high current waves of tsunami events.
442 Core 11: It is located at 151 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized
443 (Fig.S2 - 9). The first tsunami layer is a white sand at ~19 cm depth 10 cm thick, with highly
444 organic matter and characterized by high broken shells fragments and rich in organic matter >
445 4 with high weight percent of gypsum 50%. The second layer at 76 cm depth 9 cm thick
446 characterized by white sand, with broken fragments of shells, with peak of magnetic
447 susceptibility with organic matter larger than 1.5. The third tsunami layer at 107 cm depth
448 with 21 cm thick characterized by grey silty and sediments reflect the bad sorting and high
449 organic rich matter with minor amount of Illite and gypsum.
450 Eight samples were collected for dating in core 11. The first sample is a gastropod at
451 20 cm depth and shows 3638-4328 BC calibrated age. The second sample is a shell at 62 cm
452 depth with a calibrated date of 3710-3943 BC (Table 2 b). These two samples are found in the
453 stratigraphic tsunami layer 1 and 2 respectively (Fig.S2-9). They may correspond to
454 transported samples in reworked sediments due to high wave current of tsunami.
455 The third, fourth and fifth sample are gastropods found at 116 cm, 121 cm and 126 cm
456 depth with calibrated date 2619-3386 BC, 2457- 3366 BC and 2477-3368 BC, respectively.
457 The sixth sample is a shell found at 152 cm depth with calibrated date 33294-36120 BC. The
458 seventh sample corresponds to roots found at 139 cm depth with 2666-2817 BC calibrated
459 age. The eighth sample is a charcoal found at 180 cm depth with calibrated date 3710-3943
460 BC (Table 2b). Except for sample 6, samples 3 to 8 belong to sediments with chronological
461 sequence from 2457 to 3943 BC. The six samples are seemed to be transported by high wave
462 current of tsunami.
463 Core 12: It is located at 127 m from the shoreline. Three tsunami layers are recognized (Fig.
464 S2 - 10). The first layer is ~7.5-cm-thick at ~19-cm-depth and is made of poorly sorted white
465 sandy deposits, and highly broken gastropods and lamellibranch fossils. The high value of
466 organic matter and high peak of magnetic susceptibility reflect a rich content in carbonates
467 and quartz. The second layer is ~13-cm-thick at ~32.5-cm-depth characterized by white sandy
468 deposits intercalated with coarse brown sand horizontal lamination, poor sorting sediments,
469 rich in total organic matter and high peak of magnetic susceptibility. The third layer is ~25-
470 cm-thick at 89-cm-depth made of grey sandy clay, with laminations at the bottom of deposits,
471 vertically aligned gastropods, broken shells fragments, rich in total organic matter and pyrite
472 showing high peak of magnetic susceptibility. A fourth tsunami layer is identified at 151 cm
473 depth core bottom. It is characterized by pale yellow sand, medium to fine, with broken shells
474 fragments and extremely poor sorting, with high peak of magnetic susceptibility, high peak of
475 organic matter > 5.5 and high amount of gypsum.
476 Five samples were collected for dating in core 12. The first sample is a gastropod
477 found at 44 cm depth with a calibrated date at 3367-3366 BC. The second sample is a shell
478 found at 108 cm depth and shows 3097-3950 BC calibrated age (Table 2b). The third sample
479 is a gastropod found at 114 cm depth with calibrated date 3331-4050 BC. The fourth sample
480 is a shell found at 117 cm depth with calibrated age 39560- 40811 BC. The fifth sample is a
481 gastropod found at 135 cm depth with calibrated age 3365-4071 BC (Table 2b). The first and
482 fourth samples appears off sequence with respect to the other samples and may result from
483 sediment transport and reworking due to high energy tsunami waves. The other samples are in
484 sequence from 2457 to 4071 BC ages comparable to the sedimentary succession of core 11.
485
486 6. Summary of results from trenching and coring
487 The cores and trenches in both Kefr Saber and Alamein sites show three main layers
488 characterized by fine and coarse sand mixed with broken shell fragments that indicate the
489 occurrence of high energy sedimentary deposits in the coastal lagoon environment (Figs. 2 a
490 and b, and Fig. 3). A remarkable observation is the very similar white sandy layer with broken
491 shells found in trenches (see Fig. 3) and in cores with ~200 km apart that we interpret as
492 tsunami deposits due their sedimentary signatures (see details of core descriptions above).
493 According to the radiocarbon dating, this layer may be correlated with the 21 July 365
494 earthquake in western Crete and related tsunami (Figures 5 a and b).
495 In most cores (Figs. 4 a and b, and Fig. S2), the first tsunami layer is ~7.5-cm-thick at
496 ~19 cm-depth and is made of poorly sorted white sandy deposits with high broken gastropods
497 and lamellibranch (shell) fossils. The high value of organic matter and high peak of magnetic
498 susceptibility reflect a rich content in carbonates and quartz. The second layer is ~13-cm-thick
499 at ~32.5-cm-depth characterized by white sandy deposits intercalated with coarse brown sand
500 horizontal lamination, poor sorting sediments, rich in total organic matter and high peak of
501 magnetic susceptibility. The third layer ~25-cm-thick at ~89-cm-depth is made of grey sandy
502 clay, with laminations at the bottom of deposits, vertically aligned gastropods, broken shells
503 fragments, rich in total organic matter and pyrite showing high peak of magnetic
504 susceptibility.
505 In a synthesis of all dated units in trenches and cores, the sedimentary succession
506 provide evidence for the identification of three tsunami deposits with their ages using
507 radiocarbon dating at Kefr Saber and El Alamein sites (Figs 5 a and b). In the case of Kefr
508 Saber trenches (Fig. 5 a and Table 2 a), the dating of charcoal fragments allows the bracket of
509 a tsunami event between AD 30 ± 120 (sample TSU P5 S3) and AD 820 ± 1020 (sample TSU
510 P3 S2). From the dating sequence, and using the Oxcal Bayesian analysis (Bronk-Ramsay,
511 2001) we obtain a simulated age of the tsunami event between AD 137 and AD 422, which
512 includes the AD 365 western Crete earthquake. The dating of sedimentary units at the El
513 Alamein site turned out to be more complex due to the reworked sedimentation with
514 significant alluvial deposits (see the large number of dating larger than 30 ka BC in Table 2
515 b). The radiocarbon dating (including the Oxcal Bayesian analysis) of shells, bone and
516 charcoals fragments at El Alamein site result in a sequence of ages that allow the bracket of
517 an event X between AD 48 and AD 715, and event Y between AD 1168 and AD 1689, and an
518 event Z between AD 1805 and AD 1935 (Fig. 5b). The three simulated dates of the three
519 tsunami events X, Y and Z include the seismogenic tsunamis of AD 365, AD 1303 and AD
520 1870.
521 Figure 6: Location and size of tsunamigenic earthquake fault ruptures (box) along the
522 Hellenic subduction zone with a) eastern scenario between Crete and Rhodos (for the AD
523 1303 and AD 1870 earhquakes), and b) western scenario in western Crete (for the AD 365
524 earthquake). Bathymetry data from Gebco 2014 (2003).
525
526 The three main layers visible in trenches and cores have physical and chemical
527 characteristics that correlate with high energy environmental conditions of tsunami deposits.
528 The three high magnetic susceptibility peaks of the three deposits also correlates with the high
529 value of organic matter and carbonates. We also observe poorly sorted sediments greater than
530 5 in the three layers that according to Folk (1968) mark high energy deposits and tsunami
531 records.
532
533 The modelling of tsunami waves
534 The tsunami issue is particularly urgent for the Mediterranean countries that are
535 known to have been affected by tsunamis in the past, several of which had catastrophic size
536 and impact (Papadopoulos et al., 2014). Previous numerical studies of tsunamis modelling and
537 estimation of the wave height runup and the time of wave arrival on a given coastline have
538 been presented for the Hellenic arc (Shaw et al., 2008; Hamouda, 2006, 2009; Tinti et al.,
539 2015; Necmioglu and Ozel, 2015).
540
Fault dimension Values
Length 124 km
Width 50 km
Strike 54°
Dip 55°
Rake 90°
Coseismic Slip 8m
Depth 57 km
Mw 8.5
Seismic Moment (N.m.) 7.1 1021
541
542 Table 3: Fault geometry and parameters in the east Hellenic arc used for our modelling and
543 scenario.
544
545 These studies present different results due to two reasons: a) the bathymetry data with
546 various resolutions are used in the modelling, and b) the fault rupture and surface deformation
547 with various parameters used in these modelling studies.
548 Here, we present the modelling of wave propagations with two simple scenarios of
549 earthquake-generated tsunamis in the eastern and western Hellenic subduction zone (Fig. 7).
550 For each scenario, we take into account a seismic fault capable of generating an earthquake
551 with magnitude Mw equal to or larger than the highest magnitude (Mw ~ 8.5) consistent with
552 the evaluated earthquake size from historical catalogues (Tables 3 and 4; Stiros, 2001; Shaw
553 et al., 2008; Papadopoulos et al., 2014).
554
Fault dimension Values
Length 115 km
Width 45 km
Strike 133.5°
Dip 45°
Rake 90°
Coseismic Slip 9m
Depth 40 km
Mw 8.5
Seismic Moment (N.m.) 7.3 1021
555
556 Table 4: Fault geometry and parameters in the west Hellenic arc used for our modelling and
557 scenario.
558
559
560
561 Figure 7: Modeling of wave heights and propagation time in the eastern Mediterranean
562 following two worst case scenarios of comparable AD 1303 (eastern Hellenic Arc) and AD
563 365 (western Hellenic Arc) earthquakes.
564
565 The computation is based on the nonlinear shallow water theory using the Mirone
566 software update version 2.7.0, modified on 22 October 2016 (Madder, 2004; Luis, 2006). The
567 digital bathymetric data of the Eastern Mediterranean was obtained from the bathymetric
568 chart of Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 2014 (GEBCO, 2003). We use these
569 fault parameters and the Okada (1985) dislocation model in order to create the initial tsunami
570 wave. In this study, grids represent the GEBCO bathymetry (30 arc seconds, 2003) and
571 another grids contains the initial deformation as produced by the dislocation deformation
572 module.
573 In both scenarios, we consider an Mw 8.5 (as worst case) earthquake generated on
574 thrust faults running parallel to Eastern Crete-Rhodos segment consistent with the AD 1303,
575 and to western Crete consistent with AD 365 earthquake (Figures 6 a and b; Papadopoulos et
576 al., 2014). The fault rupture parameters (Tables 3 and 4) of the eastern and western
577 seismogenic segments of the Hellenic subduction zone determine the tsunami initial
578 conditions and associated seafloor coseismic deformation with a 35 m maximum and -15 m
579 initial water elevations (Fig. 7). Snapshot images of Figure 7 obtained from the modelling
580 simulation show the tsunami field wave propagations computed every 0, 16, 33, 66, 100, 150
581 minutes after the tsunami initiation. Our observations indicate that all the Egyptian coastline
582 is affected by tsunami waves but with relatively short time (~50 mn) wave propagation and
583 larger (4 to 10 m) wave heights in the case of the eastern Hellenic arc seismic source (e.g.,
584 AD 1303 earthquake). In the case of the west Crete seismic source, major wave arrives at the
585 Egyptian coast after 100 minutes with 0.86 ± 1.76 m wave height at Kafr Saber site and with
586 0.50 m wave height at the El Alamein site.
587 In comparison with the paleoseismic results, the modelling indicate that both Kefr
588 Saber and El Alamein sites recorded the past tsunamis, but with the latter site being better
589 exposed to the eastern Hellenic source of tsunamis than to the western source. In contrast, the
590 Kefr Saber site has a better record of the western Crete tsunami due to its proximity to the
591 western Hellenic seismic sources.
592
593 Discussions and Conclusions
594 The identification of tsunami deposits within the stratigraphic layers and results of
595 radiocarbon dating allow the chronological simulation of the three tsunami events (Figs. 5 a
596 and b). Indeed, the dating of the three high energy sedimentary layers deposited along the
597 Egyptian coastline a Kefr Saber and El Alamein correlate with the seismogenic tsunamis
598 generated on the Hellenic subduction zone. The historical seismicity catalogue of the Eastern
599 Mediterranean reports three significant tsunamigenic seismic events of the Hellenic
600 subduction zone that affected the Mediterranean coast of Egypt: 1) The 21 July 365
601 earthquake (Mw 8.3 ± 8.5; Stiros and Drakos, 2006; Shaw et al., 2008), 2) the 8 August 1303
602 earthquake (Mw 7.8 ± 8.0), and 3) the 24 June 1870 earthquake (Mw 7 - 7.5). The size of past
603 tsunamis can be compared with the thickness of catastrophic sedimentary units in trenches of
604 Kefr Saber and core units of the El Alamein site. It appears that the tsunami deposits of the
605 AD 365 tsunamigenic earthquake have a larger thickness at Kefr Saber site than at the El
606 Alamein site. In return, the thickness of sedimentary layers of the AD 1303 and AD 1870 are
607 thicker at the El Alamein site. These observations can be justified by the proximity of the
608 tsunamigenic source in western Crete and AD 365 earthquake with respect to the Kefr Saber
609 site, and the proximity of the AD 1303 and AD 1870 seismic sources in the east Hellenic Arc
610 with regards to the El Alamein paleotsunami site.
611 The record of past tsunami deposits are favored by the low topography and platform
612 geomorphology along the Egyptian Mediterranean coastline. The coastal environment with
613 similar lagoons and dunes with large areas with relatively flat morphology allowed the
614 deposits of catastrophic marine deposits intercalated within alluvial deposits. The lagoon
615 shapes elongated along the shoreline at Kefr Saber and El Alamein sites explain the similarity
616 between the sedimentary units and the tsunami deposits. The correlation between the core
617 deposits at El Alamein and trench deposits at Kefr Saber is marked by the dating of tsunami
618 deposits and the correspondence with the AD 365 earthquake. The succession of sudden high-
619 energy deposits with low energy and slow sedimentation may include reworked units with
620 disturbance in their chronological succession. In comparison with the trench results of Kefr
621 Saber, the sedimentary sequence from cores at El Alamein reveals mixed old and young dates
622 likely due to the sedimentary environment with large lagoon and nearby topography with the
623 supply of colluvial and alluvial deposits. Despite the richness of the sediment content in
624 charcoal fragment, bones and shells, the reworking imply significant out of sequence dating
625 and large uncertainties (see table 2 b with 12 dating with ages > 30 ka among 30 samples).
626 Although the results of dated shells would have been suspicious (due to the unclosed
627 mineralogical system), their consistency is pointed out with the comparable nearby
628 radiocarbon dating. On the other hand, 3 modern ages from the Kefr Saber trench units
629 affected the final results of tsunami layer determination.
630 The study of paleotsunami deposits represents an insight into the occurrence and size
631 of future tsunamis with an estimate of wave heights. Our modelling reveal 4 to 10 m high
632 wave reaching the Egyptian coastline after 50 minutes (Fig. 7) in agreement with the
633 historical seismicity catalogue that indicate the occurrence of great damage in Alexandria
634 region with coastal flooding and inundations. Although the constraint of tsunamigenic seismic
635 sources along the Hellenic subduction zone may include large uncertainties, the changes in
636 the parameters of coseismic ruptures do not affect significantly effect the wave propagation
637 (timing) and heights (less than 20%). The 800 years estimated recurrence time of coseismic
638 slip along the Hellenic subduction zone (with ~5000 years return period for each rupture
639 segment; Shaw et al., 2008) implies the repetition of tsunami catastrophes and the possibility
640 for a forecast programme in the East Mediterranean regions (Titov et al; 2005). These results
641 taking into account the ZRUVWFDVHVFHQDULRVHDUWKTXDNHVZLWK0ZDUHFULWLFDOIRUWKH
642 mitigation of tsunami catastrophes along coastline Egypt.
643
644 Acknowledgments
645 We are grateful to Prof. Hatem Odah, Dr. Assia Harbi, Adel Samy, Hany Hassen, Mohamed
646 Maklad, Mohamed Sayed and NRIAG administration and staff for their keen efforts and help
647 during the development of this work. We are grateful to the North African Group for
648 Earthquake and Tsunami studies (NAGET) for support. The Centre d'Etudes Alexandrines
649 helped with the lending of the COBRA instrument for coring. Special thanks to the Egyptian
650 Armed Forces for issuing permissions and their support during field work. This work is
651 conducted in the framework of the EC-Funded ASTARTE project (Assessment, Strategy And
652 Risk Reduction for Tsunamis in Europe - FP7-ENV2013 6.4-3, Grant 603839) and the
653 French-Egyptian IMHOTEP project.
654
655 Supplementary data (See Chapter IV Palotsunami records in Northern Egypt)
656
Figures S1 a, b c d and e of trench logs of Kefr Saber site,

657 Supplementary data associated with this manuscript are:
Figure S2 ± 1 to 10. of core descriptions of El Alamein site.

658
659
660
661 References
662
663 Abbas, M.S., El-Morsy, M.H., Shahba, M.A. and Moursy, F.I., 2008. Ecological studies in
664 coastal sand dune rangelands in the North-West of Egypt, Meeting of the Sub-network on
665 Mediterranean Forage Resources of the FAO-CIHEAM Inter-regional Cooperative
666 Research and Development Network on Pastures and Fodder Crops, Spai: , p. 389±393
667 Abu al-Fida Ismail Ibn Hamwi (born 1273 ± died 1331), 1329. The Concise History of
668 Humanity or Chronicles (in Arabic). 2 volumes, 1112 pp, Dar El Kutub El Illmiyah
669 (DKI), Beirut, ISBN: 2745104497.
670 Ambraseys, N.N., Melville, C.P. and Adam, R.D., 1994. The seismicity of Egypt, Arabia and
671 Red Sea: A Historical Review. Cambridge University Press, 181 pp.
672 Ambraseys, N., 2009. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary
673 Study of Seismicity up to 1900: Cambridge University Press947 pp.
674 Atwater, B., 1987. Evidence for great holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of
675 Washington state. Science, 236, 942 ± 944.
676 Bronk Ramsey, C., 2001, Development of the radiocarbon calibration program: Radiocarbon,
677 v. 43, no. 2, p. 355±363
678 Coumbary, A., Sur le tremblement de terre du 24 juin 1870, Nouvelles Météorologiques, 3,
679 200-201, Paris.
680 El-Asmar, H.M., and Wood, P., 2000, Quaternary shoreline development: the northwestern
681 coast of Egypt: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 19, no. 11, p. 1137±1149, doi:
682 10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00097-9
683 El-Sayed, A., Korrat, I., and Hussein, H. M., 2004. Seismicity and seismic hazard in
684 Alexandria (Egypt) and its surroundings. Pure Appl. Geophys., 161, 1003±1019,
685 doi:10.1007/s00024-003-2488-8.
686 Folk, R.L., 1968, Petrology of sedimentary rocks, in Austin, Texas (HemphilPs Book Store).
687 Frihy, O.E., Deabes, E. a., and El Gindy, A. a., 2010, Wave Climate and Nearshore Processes
688 on the Mediterranean Coast of Egypt: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 261, no. 261, p.
689 103±112, doi: 10.2112/08-1020.1
690 GEBCO, 2003. Digital Atlas published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf
691 of IOC and IHO.
692 Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A. and Traina G., 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the
693 Mediterranean area up to the 10th century, INGV-SGA, Bologna
694 Guidoboni, E., and A. Comastri (2005). Catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis in the
695 Mediterranean area from the 11th to the 15th century, INGV-SGA,Bologna, 1037 pp.
696 Hamouda, A.Z., 2006. Numerical computations of 1303 tsunamigenic propagation towards
697 Alexandria, Egyptian Coast. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 44, 37e44.
698 Hamouda, A.Z., 2009. A reanalysis of the AD 365 tsunami impact along the Egyptian
699 Mediterranean coast: Acta Geophysica 58, 4, 687±704, doi: 10.2478/s11600-009-0032-7
700 Hassouba, A.B.H., 1995. Quaternary Sediments From the Coastal Plain of Northwestern
701 Egypt (from Alexandria to Elomayid): Carbonates and Evaporites 10, 1, 8±44
702 Luis, J.F., 2007. Mirone: A multi-purpose tool for exploring grid data. Computers &
703 Geosciences 33, 31±41.
704 Maamoun, M., Megahed, A. and Allam, A., 1984. Seismicity of Egypt: NRIAG Bull., IV (B),
705 109±160
706 Madder, C. L., 2004. Numerical Modeling of Water Waves. Second ed. CRC Press, Boca
707 Raton, FL, 288 pp.
708 Malik, J.N., Banerjee, C., Khan, A., Johnson, F.C., Shishikura, M., Satake, K., and Singhvi,
709 A.K., 2015, Stratigraphic evidence for earthquakes and tsunamis on the west coast of
710 South Andaman Island, India during the past 1000years: Tectonophysics, v. 661, no. June
711 1941, p. 49±65, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.07.038
712 De Martini, P.M., Barbano, M.S., Pantosti, D., Smedile, A., Pirrotta, C., Del Carlo, P., and
713 Pinzi, S., 2012, Geological evidence for paleotsunamis along eastern Sicily (Italy): An
714 overview: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, v. 12, no. 8, p. 2569±2580, doi:
715 10.5194/nhess-12-2569-2012
716 Nanayama, F., Satake, K., Furukawa, R., Shimokawa, K., Atwater, B.F., Shigeno, K., and
717 Yamaki, S., 2003, Unusually large earthquakes inferred from tsunami deposits along the
718 Kuril trench: Nature, v. 424, no. 6949, p. 660±663, doi: 10.1038/nature01864
719 Necmioglu, O. and Ozel, N. M., 2015. Earthquake scenario-based tsunami wave heights in the
720 eastern Mediterranean and connected seas, Pure Appl. Geophys. DOI 10.1007/s00024-
721 015-1069-y.
722 Okada, Y., 1985. Surface Deformation due to Shear and Tensile Faults in a Half-Space. Bull.
723 Seism. Soc. Amer. 75, 1135±1154.
724 Papadopoulos, G. A., Gràcia, E., Urgeles, R., Sallares, V., De Mar- tini, P. M., Pantosti, D.,
725 González, M., Yalciner, A., Mascle, J., Sakellariou, D., Salamon, A., Tinti, S.,
726 Karastathis, V., Fokaefs, A., Camerlenghi, A., Novikova, T., and Papageorgiou, A., 2014,
727 Historical and pre-historical tsunamis in the Mediterranean and its connected seas:
728 Geological signatures, generation mechanisms and coastal impacts: Marine Geology, v.
729 354, p. 81±109, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2014.04.014
730 Poirier, J. P. and Taher, M.A., 1980. Historical Seismicity in the near and Middle East, North
731 Africa, and Spain from Arabic Documents (VIIth-XVIIIth Century). Bull. Seismol. Soc.
732 Amer. 70, 6, 2185±2201
733 Reimer, P. J., and 24 coauthors (2013). IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
734 Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 55(4).
735 Shah-Hosseini, M., Saleem, A., Mahmoud, A. and Morhange, C., 2016. Coastal boulder
736 deposits attesting to large wave impacts on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, Nat
737 Hazards, DOI 10.1007/s11069-016-2349-2
738 Shaw, B., Ambraseys, N. N., England, P.C., Floyd, M., Gorman, G.J., Higham, T.F.G.,
739 Jackson, J., Nocquet, J-M., Pain, C. C., and Piggott, M. D., 2008, Eastern Mediterranean
740 tectonics and tsunami hazard inferred from the AD 365 earthquake: Nature Geoscience,
741 v. 1, no. April, p. 268±276, doi: 10.1038/ngeo151
742 Soloviev, S.L., Solovieva, O.N., Go, C.N., Kim, K.S., and Shchetnikov, N.A., 2000,
743 Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea 2000 B.C.-2000 A.D
744 Stiros, S. C., 2001. The AD 365 Crete Earthquake and Possible Seismic Clustering During the
745 Fourth to Sixth Centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: A Review of Historical and
746 Archaeological Data. Journal of Structural Geology 23, 545±562.
747 Stiros, S., and Drakos, A., 2006. A fault model for the tsunami-associated magnitude >8.5
748 Eastern Mediterranean, AD 365 earthquake. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 146, 125±
749 137.
750 Taymaz, T., Westaway, R., and Reilinger, R., 2004. Active faulting and crustal deformation in
751 the Eastern Mediterranean region. Tectonophysics 391, 1±9.
752 doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.005.
753 Tinti, S., Manucci, A., Pagnoni, G., Armigliato, A., and Zaniboni, F., 2005, The 30 December
754 2002 landslide-induced tsunamis in Stromboli: sequence of the events reconstructed
755 from the eyewitness accounts: Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, v. 5, no. 6, p.
756 763±775, doi: 10.5194/nhess-5-763-2005
757 Titov, V., F. González, E. Bernard, M. Eble, H. Mofjeld, J. Newman, and A. Venturato (2005), Real-
758 time tsunami forecasting: challenges and solutions, Natural Hazards 35, 41-58.
759 Yalciner, A., Zaytsev, A., Aytore, B., Insel, I., Heidarzadeh, M., Kian, R., and Imamura, F.,
760 2014, A Possible Submarine Landslide and Associated Tsunami at the Northwest Nile
761 Delta, Mediterranean Sea: Oceanography, v. 27, no. 2, p. 68±75, doi:
762 10.5670/oceanog.2014.41
763
Asem Salama
Recherche sur les traces et dépôts de tsunami le long de la côte
PpGLWHUUDQpHQQHGHO¶(J\SWH&RQWH[WHVLVPRWHFWRQLTXHHW
modélisation
Résumé
Sismotectonique, paléotsunami et le tsunami scénarios sont examinés sur la côte du Nord de l'Égypte dans le
cadre du tsunami européen ASTARTE projet et le projet IMHOTEP français-égyptiens. La géologie, la
géomorphologie, séismicité, des mécanismes focaux, l'inversion de stress calculée et des données GPS utilisée
pour identifier le régime de stress de jour présent des zones actives et les zones de tsunamigène. Tranchées et
carottes ont été creusées à deux sites. Le balayage de radiographie, la sensibilité magnétique, l'analyse de taille
de grain, l'échantillonnage, macrofossile détections, total des matériaux organiques et inorganiques et la
datation au carbone est effectuée pour identifier les signatures tsunami. La couche sablonneuse blanche de
haute énergie riche en fossiles retravaillés est corrélée avec le 21 juillet 365 dans le Kefr Saber. Les quatre
couches sédimentaires de haute énergie à l'El Alamein sont corrélées les tsunamis historiques de 1600 avant
J.C., le 21 juillet 365, 8 août 1303, le 24 juin 1870.
Motes-clues: des zones actives, paléotsunamis dépôts, scénarios de tsunamis, Nord de l¶(J\SWH
Résumé en anglais
Seismotectonic, paleotsunami deposits and tsunami scenarios are investigated along the north coast of Egypt in
the framework of the tsunami ASTARTE European and the French-Egyptian IMHOTEP projects. The
geology, geomorphology, seismicity, focal mechanisms, calculated stress inversion, and GPS data were used to
identify the present day stress regime of the main active zones and the tsunamigenic zones. Trenches and cores
were dug in Kefr Saber and EL Alamein sites. X-ray scanning, magnetic susceptibility, grain size analysis,
sampling, macrofossil detections, XRD analysis, total organic and inorganic matter measurements and carbon
dating are carried out to identify the paleotsunami signatures. The high-energy white sandy layer rich in
reworked fossils at Kefr Saber are correlated with 21 July 365, while the four characteristic high-energy
sedimentary layers at the El Alamein site are correlated with the historical tsunami events of 1600 BC, 21 July
365, 8 August 1303, and 24 June 1870.
Keywords: Active zones, Paleotsunami deposits, tsunamis scenarios, northern Egypt

Salama Asem 2017 Ed413

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salama Asem 2017 Ed413

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG

ÉCOLE DOCTORALE des SCIENCES de la TERRE

Pour obtenir le grade de : 'RFWHXUGHO¶XQLYHUVLWpGH6WUDVERXUJ

Active tectonics and Paleotsunami recordsof the

THÈSE dirigée par :

AUTRES MEMBRES DU JURY:

First, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr

September 2017 Asem SALAMA

FOREWORD ......................................................................................................... ii-iii

Chapter I Introduction ...........................................................................................1-6

Chapter II Methodology .......................................................................................7-22

Chapter III Seismotectonic of northern Egypt .................................................23-67

Chapter IV Paleotsunami records in Northern Egypt͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘67-110

Chapter V Tsunami modelling and scenarios in the northern Egypt ........109-125

Chapter VI CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................123-131

Fig. 2: Bartington MS-2 Magnetic Susceptibility measurements. 13

Fig. 5: Philips PW 1730 X-ray diffractometer used in the study. 16

Fig. 8: Morphotectonic map of the Mediterranean with major, simplified 27

Fig. 20: Focal mechanisms of 12 earthquakes with ML PDJQLWXGHLQ&DLUR- 50

Fig. 21: Focal mechanisms of 15 earthquakes with ML   magnitude in the 52

Fig. 22: Focal mechanisms of 29 earthquakes ML magnitude in south Gulf of 53

Fig. 37: Large boulders in Ras EL Hekma 76

Fig. 38: Show lagoons behind the sand dunes. 76

Fig. 39: Pumping machine to discharge the underground water 77

Fig. 40: Photo core dug using Cobra instrument. 77

Fig. 41: The end of core tube. 77

Fig. 42: The preparation of core. 78

Fig. 49 : Description of trench no.5. 83

Fig. 55 : Description of core no.4 with photography, x-ray scanning, detail 91

Fig. 66: Composite section for the cores in El Alamein. 107

Chapter II Methodology: This chapter introduces the work methodologies. The

Chapter IV Paleotsunami: This chapter describes the effects of large historical

Chapter V consists in the tsunami modelling andscenarios in the northern Egypt.In

Pour compléter l'image de la déformation et de la direction des contraintes, j'ai

Chapitre IV Paléontunami: Ce chapitre décrit les effets de grands tsunamis

The understanding of seismotectonic, earthquake faulting and the recurrence of

Paleo-tsunami studies in northern Egypt are important because of the following

In a number of historical cases, seaward-directed flow and evidence of seaward flow

2.1. Examples of cores and trenching in tsunami and paleotsunami research

My studies of tsunami deposits from coring and trenching described as follows:-

2.2. a. X-ray scanning

Magnetic susceptibility (MS) measurements were used as a good tool in identifying

2.2.c. Sampling and Macrofossil detections

2.2. d. Geochemical analysis

Grain size analysis

Total organic and organic matter

Fig. 5: Philips PW 1730 X-ray diffractometer used in the study.

Minerals Principal diffraction peak (Å)

2.2.e. Radiocarbon dating

The Eastern Mediterranean is a tectonically complex basin and is a relic of the

3) Along-arc extension continuous up to the coast of southern Turkey following the

The continental margin bordering the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is characterized by

3.3. Geology and tectonics setting of Northern Egypt

3.3. a. Northern Egypt fold-fault Belt

i-The North Sinai folds and associated faults

According to Abd-Allah (2009), the maximum displacement south of the Alamein

3.3. b. The northeast Desert (Cairo±Suez area)

3.3. c. The Nile Delta

The Pliocene-Quaternary sediments uncomfortably overlay the Eocene-Miocene

1) East-West Neogene Hinge Line.

3.3.d. The Suez Rift

3.4. Seismicity and active tectonic zones

3.4.1. Historical earthquakes

C - The 21 July 365 event

Fig. 20: Focal mechanisms of 12 earthquakes with ML PDJQLWXGHLQ&DLUR- 50

Fig. 21: Focal mechanisms of 15 earthquakes with ML magnitude in the 52

Fig. 22: Focal mechanisms of 29 earthquakes ML magnitude in south Gulf of 53

Fig. 19: Focal mechanisms of 19 earthquakes ML DWWKH'DKVKRXUDUHDVHHUHIHUHQFH

Fig. 20: Focal mechanisms of 12 earthquakes with ML PDJQLWXGHLQ&DLUR-Suez area

The epicenters of 3IRFDOVROXWLRQVZLWK0/ REWDLQHGIURPSUHYLRXVVWXGLHV